RE: err:XS0010 and err:XS0031

• From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:54:23 -0400
• To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870F3178DC@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>

> > I think we don't need err:XS0031 because it seems to be covered by
> > err:XS0010.
> >
> > err:XS0031
> >
> > "It is a static error to use an option on an atomic step that is not
> > declared on steps of that type."
> >
> > err:XS0010
> >
> > "It is a static error if a pipeline contains a step whose specified
> > inputs, outputs, and options do not match the signature for steps of
> > that type."
> 
> I agree it isn't necessary, but would the spec be clearer without it?
> Right now the use of err:XS0031 in the p:option and p:with-option
> descriptions serves to remind readers that you can't refer to bogus
> options.
> 
> I don't feel strongly about it, but I think I'm inclined to leave it.

I am fine with keeping the two errors, too.

Vojtech

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 06:55:11 UTC