W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Unserializable documents

From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:34:45 +0100 (BST)
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070830163445.102AE254FF0@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

I think we agree that we should allow implementations that don't check
serializability at every step (because it would be expensive) and
implementations that do, and generate an error (because they really do
serialize at every step).

If so, we can say that an implementation MAY generate an error in such
cases, or that it is implementation-defined whether an error is
generated.  The latter implies that implementations have to document
which they do.

That leaves the question of whether we call such a program (or rather
program+data) legal or not.  We can either say "the program's legal,
but implementations may reject it", or "the program's illegal, but
implementations may accept it".  Or, I suppose, we can not say
anything about whether the program is legal.

-- Richard
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 16:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC