W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:40:10 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FBC@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Hi Martin,

Hmmm... not sure that this really is inconsistent... 

The MUST NOT is on senders sending PIs in messages.

The emboldened SHOULD is on receivers generating errors (are those faults
and if so which one(s)) on receipt of PIs in messages.

There is a non-emboldened 'should' with "detect and fault" in "Whenever
possible, receivers should detect PIIIs and fault." I took this as
explainatory narrative, because the 'should' is not a 'SHOULD'. 

The conjunction of PI detection and fault generation muddies the intended
strength of the imperative on detection and fault generation ie. MUST detect
and SHOULD fault, or SHOULD detect and SHOULD fault etc...

To me the resolution seemed clear and consistent [1], ie MUST NOT send PIs;
SHOULD generate error/fault on receipt of PIs. Detection of PIs becomes
implicit in meeting those imperatives and need not be spoken about
explicitly ( I think). Unless of course the intent of the WG in resolving
this issue was different than that... then I guess clarity and consistency
again fall into question.

Thanks,

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0046.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 14 August 2002 10:42
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
> 
> 
> 
> I was about to incorporate the resolution to issue 221[1] 
> when I noticed
> an inconsistency:
> 
> We say that a sender MUST NOT send a message containing Processing
> Instructions. However, for receivers we only say SHOULD detect PIs and
> generate a fault.
> 
> In the case of an intermediary ( the case we were thinking of when we
> said 'SHOULD' for receivers ) this will not work, as the 
> intermediary is
> also a sender. Therefore, in order to comply with the MUST it has to
> detect PIs in the inbound message, otherwise when it sends the message
> onward, it might be violating the MUST.
> 
> On balance I think the best we can get away with is SHOULD NOT
> 
> Gudge
> 
> [1] 
> http:///lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0014.html
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 09:40:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:10 GMT