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
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
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
higher-layer protocols compounding the problem by not even making
as much as you managed to get. Certainly for this applies to