Re: Error definition

I don't think you are wrong, although I think that any parser is necessarily also a "recogniser": to "recognise" a piece of text, all you can really do is try to parse it and see if it succeeds...

I suppose there may also be errors that are due to reasons other than the input not being a sentence in the grammar: we really ought to think about having some standard error codes.

_________________
Tomos Hillman
eXpertML Ltd
+44 7793 242058
On 4 Feb 2022, 12:00 +0000, Bethan Tovey-Walsh <accounts@bethan.wales>, wrote:
> I’m inclined to agree with Dave. I wouldn’t call it an error if the implementation were only a recogniser: it would make sense in that context for the outcomes “yes, this is a sentence” and “no, this is not a sentence” to be of (potentially) equal interest and value. But the point of the ixml parser is to provide vxml output, not to tell you whether your input string is a valid sentence or not. If it can’t provide that output, I’d call that an error.
>
> Happy to hear why I’m wrong, though; my instinctive understanding is sometimes way off base.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:36, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > O Regan, Gonorill, your old kind father
> > Whose franke heart gaue you all, O that way madnes lies,
> > Let me shun that, no more of that.
> > -Bill S
> >
> > When I compile a programming language program,
> > I may get warnings, but (to me) the compile either
> > succeeds or fails.
> >
> > I would hope that with an ixml grammar and input string
> > I can rely on the same reasoning? Pass / fail (or pass,
> > with warnings). From this I expect my vxml output to
> > be complete, no 'missing bits'?
> >
> > I'm using a Saxon class implementation, so if it has a bug
> > I can look for a blue moon.
> >
> > Is this assumption reasonable / agreed?
> >
> >
> >
> > regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dave Pawson
> > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> > Docbook FAQ.
> >
>
>