You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If I understand the consensus for issue #561 right, then p:archive is expected to raise XC0081 if the document appearing on port "archive" is not in the format (implicitly) defined by option format. XC0085 is reserved to other error conditions with the archive.
The same case can appear on p:archive-manifest, but there the error code XC0085 is expected. I propose to add XC0081 also to p:archive manifest with the same error text as for p:archive. As a consequence the error test for XC0085 for p:manifest should be changed as proposed by @gimsieke for p:archive.
Does this make sense? Or did I miss some aspects where the difference makes sense.
Hint: Test "ab-archive-manifest-006.xml " is related.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If I understand the consensus for issue #561 right, then p:archive is expected to raise XC0081 if the document appearing on port "archive" is not in the format (implicitly) defined by option
format
. XC0085 is reserved to other error conditions with the archive.The same case can appear on p:archive-manifest, but there the error code XC0085 is expected. I propose to add XC0081 also to p:archive manifest with the same error text as for p:archive. As a consequence the error test for XC0085 for p:manifest should be changed as proposed by @gimsieke for p:archive.
Does this make sense? Or did I miss some aspects where the difference makes sense.
Hint: Test "ab-archive-manifest-006.xml " is related.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: