- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:01:17 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: "public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
May I suggest that the phrase "required option" is a bit confusing, even oxymoronic. (Hey, who are you calling an oxy-moron?) I don't have an alternative at hand, but... Just sayin' Murray > On Jan 7, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > Bug 21001 observes that it is not always possible to detect statically > that a required option is missing: > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21002 > > I propose the following resolution: > > In 5.7.2 p:option, replace the first paragraph after the first > p:option syntax diagram with: > > > An option may be declared as required. If an option is required, it > is an error to invoke that step without specifying a value for that > option. For steps invoked within a pipeline, it is a static error > (err:XS0018) to specify an invocation without specifying a value for > a requried option. For pipelines invoked directly by an external > environment (informally, top-level pipelines), this error cannot be > detected statically. It is a dymamic error (err:XD????) to invoke > a pipeline without specifying a value for a required option. > > Comments? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > Lead Engineer > MarkLogic Corporation > Phone: +1 512 761 6676 > www.marklogic.com
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 16:01:52 UTC