[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Error handling: yes, I did mean it



Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> To summarize: I proposed that XML processors be required to stop
> passing data (other than error notifications) to applications after the
> first violation of well-formedness.  Lots of people disagree.   

As long as there is no intent to include invalidity onto the list of
things
that a client must freak out at.

As far as well-formedness, an error is an error and should be reported.  

But it should be up to the particular vendor to figure out what strategy
to take in the presence of a error.  We cannot assume that all XML
documents
are financial transactions that do require stringent error checking.

For example, (due to the evil "selective ack" design problem in TCP/IP) 
large documents have a high chance of failing in transfers to faraway 
places like here (Australia). So we would would probably look more dimly
on
higher-layer protocols  compounding the problem by not even making
available 
as much as you managed to get.  Certainly for this applies to
readable documents.


-Rick Jelliffe


References: