- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:51:13 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> > I don't think err:XS0044 covers this case either, it's the element > analog of err:XS0008, saying that unexpected elements aren't allowed. > It doesn't say anything about required elements or attributes. > > > So, what should we do with pipelines that do not validate > egainst the > > XProc schema (which is the case here)? I thought that this > was covered > > by err:XS0044. > > I don't think we have a general "must conform to schema" error. We > could add one, or we could cover the cases with specific errors, like > err:XS0016. I think I'm marginally inclined to try to cover the cases > with explicit errors since it will be more helpful to users, I think. > But I don't feel strongly about it. > Personally, I would prefer a single error code for "must conform to schema", although I don't want to give the impression in the spec that a conforming processor must always validate. If we decide to use explicit error codes, we may need quite a lot of them: "p:log must contain @port", p:document must contain @href", "p:variable must contain @name and @select", etc... But perhaps the errors could be generalized, so we would need only a few. Vojtech
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 13:52:33 UTC