Re: Error definition

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 17:26, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
<cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:
> > A user view.
> > 1.input.ixml
> > 2.input.txt
> > (hoped for)
> > 3. output.xml
> >
> > Assumption: The processor is not buggy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I process 1 and 2.
> >   Options:
> > I get 3. No messages. We're all happy. Success.
> > I get no 3. Something has gone wrong (my defn, an error has occurred).
> >   I look to the processor to tell me where that error is?
> > <ul>
> >  <li> 1 not valid to ixml spec</li>
> >  <li> (some part of )2 not a sentence in grammar of 1</li>
> >   <li> ???</li>
> > </ul>
>
> > My view, the 'transformation' has failed, with an error reported.
> > What it is, where to look for it, I turn to the error / warnings /
> > output of the processor.
>
> > Basically I'm uninterested in nuances. It worked | it failed to produce 3
>
> What I don't understand in this scenario is:  why do you want to require
> the other members of the CG to join you in using the terms "failure" and
> "error" in ways that do not distinguish bugs in the processor from bugs
> in the grammar from bugs in the input?

Note my assumption above Michael.
IMHO a bug in the processor does not give me 3, hence it is an error.

btw, I'm not requiring anything of anyone. I'm putting forward my
view, as you do.


>
> And why do you want to impose your way of seeing this case of every user
> of ixml?

I am a (potential) user, I think a user view as important as any.
And (again) I'm not imposing my view, simply presenting it, as I said
in my original post.
Do you wish to build a playground for devs only?


>
>
> > AFAICT - it's an error that needs some debugging.
>
> Nothing in your scenario actually specifies that the input in question
> is or should be described successfully by the grammr in question.

I think it did. If I get 3, that is a success.


 Did
> someone tell you that input.ixml describes the structure of input.txt?
> Did someone contruct input.txt in an attempt to follow the rules of
> input.ixml?

That's why a user will use the processor? To find out? To attempt
to produce 3?


>
> If someone lied to you, or someone failed to follow the rules of a
> grammar, why should that be a violation of the rules of ixml?

Obfuscation Michael?


regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.

Received on Sunday, 6 February 2022 07:51:45 UTC