[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Error terminology [was: Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?]
From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, 2006 August 16 05:45 To: Paul Prescod; Dana Spradley; Michael Priestley Cc: Chris Wong; dita@lists.oasis-open.org; JoAnn Hackos; Grosso, Paul Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible? The wiki page http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Indexing_issue_summary?action=show is again more up to date. ________________________________ Thanks, Bruce. I'm happy with leaving word-smithing to when we have actual draft text to discuss, so I'm not suggesting we open up our decisions at this point, but I do need to note that saying something like "<index-see> is allowed at the deepest levels only" is not sufficient for our spec because we cannot *prevent* such from happening. Therefore, we need to say what should occur when <index-see> does occur at other than the deepest level. We might consider doing what the XML specs do which is to define "error" [1] to be "a violation of the rules of this specification; results are undefined.... Conforming software MAY detect and report an error and MAY recover from it." That allows for giving warning or error messages, but also allows simply ignoring it. (A good implementation would probably give the user a choice as to whether to receive warnings or not.) Then instead of having to repeat ourselves throughout the spec, we can just say something like "it is an error for an <index-see> to occur at other than the deepest level". paul [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-error
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]