RE: [closed] Re: p:declare-step - atomic steps vs. empty pipelines

Speaking of improper error codes or confusing error messages, there are
a couple of more cases that I mentioned in an older e-mail (12/20/07)
and that still don't appear to be fixed:

- The text for dynamic error err:XD0014 should be more generic so it is
meaningful both for c:parameter and c:parameter-set

- err:XS0035 mixes two cases together: declaration of parameter inputs
cannot contain bindings + the owner pipeline has no primary parameter
input port

- err:XS0043 - is this really a correct error code if a pipe binding is
found in an input declaration?

Regards,
Vojtech

--
Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation

Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Toman_Vojtech@emc.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:42 PM
> To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [closed] Re: p:declare-step - atomic steps vs. empty 
> pipelines
> 
> / Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
> | OK. Just one thing: static error XS0027 is referred to in 
> two places:
> | Syntactic Shortcut for Option Values (4.7.1), and in Syntax 
> Summaries 
> | (3.7), each time with a different meaning. I guess this is 
> a typo and 
> | a different error code should be used for options.
> 
> Right. Fixed. Thanks!
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as
> http://nwalsh.com/            | possible, but no simpler.
>

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 14:06:49 UTC