- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:47:43 +0000
- To: public-xml-er@w3.org
On 20/02/2012 11:38, John Snelson wrote: > I think we can easily say "a warning is reported", where the > implementation gets to define how a warning is reported. No API > design needed here. > > John Yes we could, although I thought that the tendency these days (more so than when xml 1.0 was spec'd) is to either make testable assertions or say nothing. Whether a warning reported on some unspecified channel is testable depends a bit on your definition of testable. But no real disagreement there, the main thing we'd need to decide is whether the warnings have to cover all the cases where the input is not well formed XML. I think that might be too much of a constraint at this stage. If the end result is that that is supported, that's good, but I don't think we should commit to that as a requirement which is, I think, what Liam was suggesting. David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 11:48:10 UTC