Re: xml-stylesheet issues--suggested resolutions

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:41:54 +0200, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> Having reviewed what Arbortext does [1] and (thanks to Henry)
> what Saxon does [2], embedded herein are my suggestions for
> clarifications to the Associating Stylesheets Rec [3].
>
> In general, we will need to decide if the various error
> cases are "it is an error (the xml-stylesheet processor
> may ignore the whole thing, may ignore what it doesn't
> understand and try to process the rest, etc.)" or "fatal
> xml-stylesheet error (a compliant xml-stylesheet processor
> must ignore the entire PI)" or "it is an error; the
> xml-stylesheet processor must recover by XXXX".
>
> In most cases, I'm tempted to say "is an error; the
> xml-stylesheet processor MAY ignore the entire PI; if
> it tries to recover, it SHOULD xxxx."  Thoughts?

I would prefer if for different errors it was either "is an error: MUST ignore the entire PI" or "is an error: MUST recover as follows: xxxx".

Are there any cases where one user agent would want to ignore the entire PI but another would want to recover? If there are, then I would prefer "is an error: MUST either ignore the entire PI or recover as follows: xxxx".


> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Feb/0022
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Apr/0025
> [3] http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/


Cheers,
-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 10:49:16 UTC