- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:59:54 -0400
- 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