W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2005

Re: XML Core WG near term actions

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:23:19 -0400
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <87mzrwgfso.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| ACTION to Norm:  Suggest actual wording for PEX1--fatal
| XInclude errors in unactivated fallbacks

I suggest adding a new paragraph between paragraphs 3 and 4 of
section 3.2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#fallback_element):

  The content of xi:fallback elements are ignored unless a resource
  error occurs while processing the surrounding xi:include element. In
  particular, apparent fatal errors caused by the presence, absence,
  or content of elements and attributes inside the xi:fallback element
  must not be reported in xi:fallback elements that are ignored.

| ACTION to Norm:  Reply to the commentor for PEX2--URI 
| or IRI errors handling.

I propose to responde as follows:

  Thank you for your comment[1] on XInclude:

  [...]
  > A value that results in a syntactically invalid URI or IRI should
  > be reported as a fatal error, but some implementations may find it
  > impractical to distinguish this case from a resource error. 
  > [...]
  >
  > This seems to assume that such resource identifiers neccessarily yield
  > in a resource error. Please change the text to explicitly state whether
  > an implementation would be considered conforming if it does not report
  > a fatal error and processing does not yield in a resource error. This
  > is possible e.g. if processing yields in a IRI that meets the generic
  > constraints of the IRI specification but does not meet the specific re-
  > quirements of the specific scheme and a request is made to via an IRI-
  > aware protocol for which the server is designed to tolerate such faults,
  > possibly licenced by the protocol specification, for example. The text
  > implies that such implementations would be non-conforming.

  It is our intent that a syntactically invalid URI or IRI should not
  be considered conforming. We don't expect XInclude processors to
  implement strict checking of these values, but neither do we want to
  license a processor to ignore such errors.

  In the particular case you describe, the processor is nonconformant
  but neither a fatal nor a resource error has been raised. It's quite
  possible that this is the result the user was expecting. But in the
  case where some other implementation did report the invalid IRI as a
  fatal error, or some other server did report it as a resource error,
  the current wording makes it clear which implementations are
  conformant.

  On this basis, the WG declines to make changes to the specification
  in response to your comment.

| ACTION to Norm:  Investigate what should happen on the
| last xml:id test.

I hope to get a chance to investigate this tomorrow.

                                        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.

Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 17:23:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:28 UTC