- From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:49:49 +0200
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:00:37PM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: > > Elliotte is posting a bunch of messages to > public-xml-id@w3.org. Rather than forward > all of them, I suggest people--especially > those involved in xml-id implementations > (e.g., Norm, Richard, Daniel)--take a look at > the xml-id archives (if you aren't subscribed). His message about non-fatal errors raise a serious point: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Apr/0005 XML parsing is relatively low in the software stack, and we cannot expect non-fatal error to cross boundaries. Apparently XOM don't even have any "non-fatal" error reporting API, and Elliotte hence seems to think XOM cannot be made xml:id compliant. maybe the sentence "Such errors are not fatal, but must be reported by the xml:id processor to the application invoking it." should be softened into "Such errors are not fatal, but must be reported if possible by the xml:id processor to the application invoking it." I am not sure "must ... if possible" really fit the existing semantic of MUST. I would really like the error to be reported, but I understand that it may not fit all frameworks. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ |
Received on Sunday, 3 April 2005 11:20:44 UTC