W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Must vs. fatal error

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:59:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4288994A.4010609@metalab.unc.edu>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: public-xml-id@w3.org

Richard Tobin wrote:

> In that case, I don't see how we can do much.  A system that can't
> return non-fatal errors to the application and can't display them to
> the user just has no way to signal non-fatal errors.  And I don't
> think that this should result in standards only being able to require
> errors to be reported if they are fatal.  So I think you will just
> have to be non-conformant in this respect.

I think an obvious solution is to change the MUST to a SHOULD. To my way 
of thinking MUST implies a fatal error in the first place.

If the XOM case is not compelling, consider that many XML processing 
systems are built out of multiple layers of different libraries, each of 
which talks to the next. Different layers in the stack may have 
different or no error reporting mechanisms. Different layers are likely 
to do different things with xml:id. The more MUST constraints xml:id 
places on processing, the harder it is going to be to glue all these 
different pieces together.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 13:11:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:50 UTC