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

Re: p:error

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:22:09 +0100
Message-ID: <46897A91.4080703@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

We should keep the code as required, otherwise how could a pipeline 
author perform a p:choose on /err:errors/err:error/@code ?

On a side note, the error vocabulary in the spec (appendices D and E) 
are bound to the c: prefix. Moreover, if @code is made required for 
p:error, it should be required as well on E.2 (err:error) and on the 


Norman Walsh wrote:
> I think we're fooling ourselves if we believe that requiring a code
> or description on p:error is going to force authors to write either
> meaningful codes or meaningful descriptions.
> They ought to both be optional.
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 22:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:43 UTC