W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Editorial: must not vs. fatal error

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:58:35 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA20423D50C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>

Yes, you're interpretation is correct.  As per my last message, we have
clarified the appearance of a fragment ID as a fatal error.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-xinclude-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elliotte Harold
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 4:07 PM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Editorial: must not vs. fatal error
> 
> 
> Seection 3.1 states:
> 
> Fragment identifiers must not <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#dt-must>
> be used.
> 
> 
> However, section 6.2 states:
> 
> An application conforms to XInclude if it:
> 
>     *
> 
>       supports [XML 1.0] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#XML>,
>       [Namespaces in XML] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#XMLNS>, the
>       [XML Information Set] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#XMLIS>,
[XML
>       Base] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#XMLBase>, the [XPointer
>       Framework] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#XPCore>, and the
>       [XPointer element() scheme]
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#XPElement>
> 
>     *
> 
>       stops processing when a fatal error
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#dt-error> is encountered.
> 
>     *
> 
>       observes the mandatory conditions (must
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#dt-must>) set forth in this
>       specification, and for any optional conditions (should
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#dt-must> and may
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#dt-must>) it chooses to observe,
>       observes them in the way prescribed
> 
>     *
> 
>       performs markup conformance testing according to all the
>       conformance constraints appearing in this specification.
> 
> It seems to me that "must nots" and musts are intended to apply to
> processor behavior, whereas fatal errors normally describe document
> content. If this interpretation is correct, I think the "must not" in
> 3.1.1 should instead be a fatal error. e.g.
> 
> It is a fatal error if a fragment identifier is used in the value of
an
> href attribute.
> 
> If my interpretation of section 3.1 is not correct, and this is not a
> fatal error, then I would request that the spec further elaborate on
> what implementations are supposed to do when encountering a fragment
ID
> in an href attribute.
> 
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
Received on Monday, 5 July 2004 13:58:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:16:09 GMT