Re: New editors' draft

In 4.2:
first paragraph:
"For any sequence of bytes, a conforming MicroXML parser MUST be able to
report correctly whether it is a conforming MicroXML document. If it is a
conforming MicroXML document, then a conforming MicroXML parser MUST be
able to report the correct abstract data model for the document."

...
later:
 "A MicroXML parser is still conforming if it fails to meet the
requirements of the first paragraph of this section only because of
limitations of computing resources."

Not sure about the use of MUST in the first paragraph. It seems to be
pointless making it a MUST if that is then weakened later to say there is
some vague category of parser which breaks the conformance requirement but
is allowed to do so because it somehow can't keep it. That just sounds like
a SHOULD.

Perhaps the two paragraphs should be combined to say something like:

"For any sequence of bytes, a conforming MicroXML parser that has the
processing capability to do so, MUST be able to report correctly whether it
is a conforming MicroXML document. If it is a conforming MicroXML document,
then a conforming MicroXML parser MUST be able to report the correct
abstract data model for the document."

or just weaken the MUST to a SHOULD:

"For any sequence of bytes, a conforming MicroXML parser SHOULD be able to
report correctly whether it is a conforming MicroXML document. If it is a
conforming MicroXML document, then a conforming MicroXML parser MUST be
able to report the correct abstract data model for the document."


I do like the wording for the paragraph:

"A MicroXML parser MAY perform error correction, by providing an abstract
data model even for sequences of bytes that are not conforming MicroXML
documents. It MUST, however, still comply with the requirement of the first
paragraph to report that the sequence of bytes is not a conforming MicroXML
document."

but I'd be happy to see that MAY changed to a SHOULD to say perhaps:

"To facilitate error correction a MicroXML parser SHOULD provide an
abstract data model even for sequences of bytes that are not conforming
MicroXML documents. It MUST, however, still comply with the requirement of
the first paragraph to report that the sequence of bytes is not a
conforming MicroXML document."
----
Stephen D Green



On 11 September 2012 06:43, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:

> I have hacked on John's draft quite extensively.  There's a new version at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/microxml/wiki/Editor%27s_Draft
>
> There are some formatting glitches due to embedding HTML in the wiki.
>  Don't worry about them: they will disappear when we move it out of the
> wiki.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Feel free to fix typos yourself (and be sure to fill in the Summary field
> summarizing your change), but please leave substantive changes to me and
> John.
>
> James
>