W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2013

RE: Output-Example Cocomore

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:51:00 -0600
To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003301ce4ff1$ab320de0$019629a0$@com>
Maybe we can have a simple processing expectation that says something like:

Any non-ITS element or attribute MAY be ignore but MUST be preserved if the document is re-written.

(or use SHOULD instead of MUST to be more flexible. But a MUST would be safer for interoperability)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka@kosek.cz] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:47 AM
To: Felix Sasaki
Cc: Karl Fritsche; Yves Savourel; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: Output-Example Cocomore

On 13.5.2013 17:32, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> What do you have in mind as "processing expectations"? The nature of 
> extensions is that everything can happen, no?

It's common to say what is application supposed to do when it encounters unknown element -- it can either ignore it or abort. Some specifications keep this completely unspecified, which can lead to interop problems.
Some specs are trying to solve this problem by introducing attributes like mustUnderstand which are used for labelling those extensions which can't be ignored.


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
    Bringing you XML Prague conference    http://xmlprague.cz
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 15:51:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC