[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: canonicalization

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 16:23:39 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <1015032338.3309.3.camel@l...><p04330103b8a7fd271d04@[192.168.254.4]><1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...><p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]><1015193078.3350.61.camel@l...><p04330107b8a85bc15730@[192.168.254.4]><1015201142.3309.108.camel@l...><p04330108b8a8657da0a3@[192.168.254.4]>

> On a document level, it's easy to be draconian. Simply don't provide 
> any xinclude:fallback elements. Then a missing resource will be 
> fatal. The current draft doesn't provide any means to implement this 
> at the parser level though. 

Back to "the only way to get sane behavior is to rely on
non-standard extensions" evil.   Chthulu is pleased!


>    This is  all new functionality in the 
> recently released CR, so if you don't like this make a comment to the 
> working group. (Personally, I think anything as major as this should 
> require a return to working draft status. Stuff like this should not 
> be added at CR.)

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the XInclude spec said that you needed
to substitute <xi:error code="..."/.>, rather than content found
in the document, it'd at least start to make technical sense as
a processor-neutral way to report errors ... even though it would
still be polluting the data content of the document.  One could
imagine statements that documents with xi:error elements
have no canonical form.

- Dave

• References:
  • canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Next by Date: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Previous by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Next by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread