New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Granularity of XD- and XC-type errors #342

Open
xml-project opened this Issue Mar 23, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@xml-project
Contributor

xml-project commented Mar 23, 2018

Related to issue #341 a more general question comes up to me: Since we have now multiple p:catch to handle different types of errors, does it still make sense to have such molecular errors as XD0011:

It is a dynamic error if the resource referenced by a p:document element does not exist, cannot be accessed, or has an XML content type and is not a well-formed XML document.

Authors might want to have different error mechanisms for non existing documents, not accessible (protected) document or not well-formed documents. The my understanding such a molecular type of error was ok in XProc 1.0 were the basic audience for error message was human. In XProc 3.0 pipelines will consume errors very much, so I think we need more specific codes to make this possible.

One could argue that the pipeline should inspect the error message (in contract to the error code), but this is the path to non interoperable pipelines because different processors will display different error texts and users might use the pipeline in different language environment and want their error message e.h. in spanish.

@ndw

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ndw commented Mar 24, 2018

I agree, we want explicit codes for distinct errors to the largest extent practical.

@gimsieke

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

gimsieke commented Sep 5, 2018

also related to #333

@ndw

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ndw commented Nov 6, 2018

I don't think there's any specific action that we can take to close this issue. I've attempted to close #333 and I propose that we simply close this one. We all agree that more granularity is better in error codes.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

xml-project commented Nov 6, 2018

Not sure I want to close this. Although there is currently no specific action yet, I think we should keep it as a reminder to look over all XDs and XCs as one of the last editorial steps. Proposal: Change labels to "editorial".

@ndw

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

ndw commented Nov 6, 2018

🤷‍♂️ Ok.

@ndw ndw added the editorial label Nov 6, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment