 |
 |
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