On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:50:44 Karen Lease wrote:
> A few quick thoughts...
>
> That was probably just my XML super-ego thinking that case-by-case
> checks were a _bad_ thing... But on the other hand, as Arved points out,
> the complexity of the model would make it rather problematic. It's
> certainly more important to focus on detecting cases which FOP (or FO)
> can't or isn't supposed to handle and giving some kind of comprehensible
> message to the user, rather than getting hung up on formal correctness.
I was thinking along the lines of some simple hashmaps (tables) containing
which elements are allowed as a child for the current element and which are
not allowed as a descendant, which is passed down to the children. This
includes sets such as block and inline.
The attribute constraint example is more difficult and will we run into a
problem handling the situation anyway. So the error handling could be left
until the problem is encountered.
> We also need to think about what to do when we encounter this kind of
> case. Obviously we want to inform the user. We could either stop on an
> exception or just ignore the offending FO and keep going.
Usually a spec has a section on how the processor should handle errors but
I couldn't find it in the XSL spec.
Anyway, I think I will create a document with all the constraint info for
all the elements.
Keiron.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
