- From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>
- Date: 24 Feb 2005 15:00:00 +0000
- To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: "'www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org '" <www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org>, "'www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org '" <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
>>>>> "Bryan" == Thompson, Bryan B <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com> writes: Bryan> Colin, My interpretation was that a syntactic error in the Bryan> xpointer grammar would be reported as an error to the Bryan> application. On the other hand, a syntactic error within Bryan> the scheme data production for a specific xpointer scheme Bryan> would cause that pointer part to be skipped and evaluation Bryan> would continue with the next pointer part. Bryan> At a pragmatic level, I do a two stage parse. First the Bryan> xpointer grammar. Errors in this parse are reported as Bryan> errors. Second, the xpointer processor dispatches to Bryan> scheme-specific processors for each pointer part. An error Bryan> from a scheme-specific processor (or the lack of a Bryan> scheme-specific processor for a scheme-based pointer part) Bryan> is treated as "not identifying a resource" and evaluation Bryan> continues. That's exactly what I have done, but the recommendations all seem a little vague to me. Bryan> That said, I expose a wider interface so that the Bryan> application can determine which pointer parts were Bryan> evaluated, which had errors, and which identified one or Bryan> more (sub-)resources. That sounds like a good idea. -- Colin Paul Adams Preston Lancashire
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 15:00:33 UTC