- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 13:51:43 -0700
- To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-ixml@w3.org
Norm Tovey-Walsh writes: > It isn’t necessary, or even likely, that we'll all agree that pragmas > are the right way to handle every one of these cases. But if we can > all see the utility of pragmas for *some* of these cases, even if we > don’t agree on which ones, then it makes sense to specify some sort of > structured pragma mechanism for ixml. For what it's worth, I think the right way to handle almost all of the use cases you mention (certainly almost all of the ones Tom and I identified) would be by changes in the specification of ixml. But since that way of handling them is available only to the group as a whole, any implementor who wants to handle them *now* has a choice between handling them with pragmas or handling them by non-standard changes to the syntax or semantics of ixml. And given that choice, I think pragmas are a better way to handle them than effectively forking ixml. > A few additional use cases for pragmas that occur to us: > ## Manipulating processor warnings > Requests that warnings are output if certain conditions arise, even if > those conditions are not normally cause for a warning. Or suppressing warnings that might otherwise be given. > ## Choosing an output parse > > If more than one valid parse is found, uses a set of requirements to > select a preferred parse for the vxml output. Nice one. Michael -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Friday, 28 January 2022 20:52:02 UTC