- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:39:16 +0100
- CC: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Fang, Andrew wrote: > I was actually thinking about a fall back mechanism here. Custom > component should specify a fallback that must be implemented by all > pipeline implementations. It could be as simple as passing the > information along without any processing. I wonder how many use cases would actually benefit from this. I would think that in most situations you would simply be in a "fatal error" type of scenario. Consider simply an XSLT transformation you want to perform: if you don't have an XSLT transformation component available, your task simply cannot be executed. What sense does it make to pass the information unmodified? Maybe the right way of looking at this suggestion is for its proponents to provide concrete use cases that would benefit from a fallback mechanism. Alternatively, a generic error (exception) handling mechanism could take care of the issue, assuming the absence of a component is handled as a runtime error. -Erik
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:39:16 UTC