RE: Handling unrecognized xpointer schemes

We will remove the word "syntax" here.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-xinclude-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elliotte Rusty Harold
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:39 AM
> To: daniel@veillard.com
> Cc: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Handling unrecognized xpointer schemes
> 
> 
> At 2:24 PM +0200 6/4/04, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> >   So any error from an XPointer level is opaque, you can't make
> assumption
> >at the specification level wether this is due to syntactic problems,
> scheme
> >support or error locating any subresource (that's far from perfect, I
> agree).
> >   What the note you copied intend is to insist on that point, i.e.
all
> errors
> >coming back from an XPointer evaluation are handled as resource
error,
> because
> >there is no way to tell what happened in general. Maybe that could be
> reworded
> >to be made clearer,
> 
> 
> I'm fine with that resolution, provided it is reworded. I suggest
> just saying "error" rather than specifying "syntax error." I don't
> think the XPointer Framework spec uses the phrase "syntax error".
> --
> 
>    Elliotte Rusty Harold
>    elharo@metalab.unc.edu
>    Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>    http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
> 
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaula
it
> A