I think the generic one should be enough to start with.  If folks discover
that they can make and use finer distinctions, then add them.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: XPath Proposal
>
>
> > > * New Diagnostics (to be assigned numbers):
> > > XPath retrieval expression invalid for this record.
>
> > XPath retrieval failed
> > I'm just going to turn the request over to XSLT and I doubt
> that I'll be
> > able to respond with any of those other specific errors.
>
> Perhaps make the invalid one less specific? Or are we happy
> with a generic
> one and a more specific one?
>
> Rob
>
>
> --
>       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::.                WWW:
http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I