W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

Re: ERB votes on error handling

From: altheim <altheim@mehitabel.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: tbray@textuality.com
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <libSDtMail.9705071210.30921.altheim@mehitabel>
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes:
> However, this proposal did get serious consideration, and quite likely
> would have attracted significant numbers of votes from the Tolerants
> in the crowd.

Since this isn't the Protestants and the Catholics we're talking about,
could we refrain from deliberately creating camps within the WG? While
I understand that everyone in the end votes one way or another, the idea 
that there is homogeneity within the two labelled viewpoints assumes that
there is a common understanding and complete agreement. I don't fit into
either the 'draconian' or the 'tolerant' group, just as it is difficult
for me to label myself as liberal or conservative; it depends on context.

It just seems counterproductive to force people to line up on one side or
the other of a chalk line while discussing the chalk line itself.

> So after all this, the vote:
[...]
> 2. The XML-lang spec should be modified to state:
> 
>    When an XML processor encounters a violation of a well-formedness 
>    constraint, it must report this error to the application.  It may 
>    continue processing the data to search for further errors, and report 
>    such errors to the application.  In order to support correction of 
>    errors, it may make the unprocessed text from the document, with 
>    intermingled character data and markup, available to the application.
> 
>    Once such a violation is detected, however, the processor must not
>    continue the process, described in [ref. to language in point 1],
>    of passing character data extracted from markup, and description
>    of the logical document structure expressed by the markup, to the 
>    application.
 
So am I to understand that no compliant XML processor can be used in a
GUI XML authoring application, as it becomes non-compliant the moment it 
continues to send a broken XML document to the display processor? Yes, I did
read the 'in order to support correction of errors' phrase, but it 
seems to be contradicted in the second paragraph. If the XML editor is
a GUI editor, 'character data extracted from markup' is what the user 
sees, and this display is halted upon encountering the first error. And the 
authoring application's best understanding of the document structure will
be broken but serve as the user's clue to fixing it. Display of this is 
also disallowed? Since I can't believe that the ERB has actually voted
this way (hence my understanding must be flawed), could you please clarify?

Thanks,

Murray 

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey                    <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Member of Technical Staff, Tools Development & Support
Sun Microsystems, 2550 Garcia Ave., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94043 USA
         "Give a monkey the tools and he'll build a typewriter."
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 1997 15:10:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC