- 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