Re: Moving towards "strict" xml:id checking

/ John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh scripsit:
|
|> The proposal I was trying to make when we ran out of time is the following:
|> 
|>   It is an error for an ID value to be specified more than once.
|>   A processor which detects this error MUST report it. Processors
|>   SHOULD attempt to detect all such errors.
|
| My objection to this is from the viewpoint of SAXish or other stream
| processors, which are being asked to keep an ID table requiring O(n)
| space, where n is the document length.  Currently they need only a
| stack requiring space proportional to the document's nesting depth.

That was the reason for making "attempt to detect all such errors" a
SHOULD. I could live with just being silent on that.

| I'd rather see this:
|
|    It is an error for an ID value to be specified more than once.
|    Processors MAY detect and report an error and MAY recover from it.
|
| (That's from the XML definition of "error".)

Hmm. I'm happy with "MAY detect" but I want "MUST report", I think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.