- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:34:45 +0100 (BST)
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
I think we agree that we should allow implementations that don't check serializability at every step (because it would be expensive) and implementations that do, and generate an error (because they really do serialize at every step). If so, we can say that an implementation MAY generate an error in such cases, or that it is implementation-defined whether an error is generated. The latter implies that implementations have to document which they do. That leaves the question of whether we call such a program (or rather program+data) legal or not. We can either say "the program's legal, but implementations may reject it", or "the program's illegal, but implementations may accept it". Or, I suppose, we can not say anything about whether the program is legal. -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 16:34:57 UTC