- From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:22:09 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
We should keep the code as required, otherwise how could a pipeline author perform a p:choose on /err:errors/err:error/@code ? On a side note, the error vocabulary in the spec (appendices D and E) are bound to the c: prefix. Moreover, if @code is made required for p:error, it should be required as well on E.2 (err:error) and on the schemas. Rui Norman Walsh wrote: > I think we're fooling ourselves if we believe that requiring a code > or description on p:error is going to force authors to write either > meaningful codes or meaningful descriptions. > > They ought to both be optional. > > Be seeing you, > norm >
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 22:22:16 UTC