Skip to content
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

Require prioritising syntax & data model errors #1011

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

@eemeli eemeli commented Feb 17, 2025

We should tighten up our requirement about error priority; there's no reason to keep this as a SHOULD instead of a MUST. The syntax & data model errors are also determinable before runtime.

@eemeli eemeli added Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference errors Issues related to the errors section of the spec LDML47 LDML 47 Release (Stable) labels Feb 17, 2025
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ or separately by more than one such method.
When a message contains more than one error,
or contains some error which leads to further errors,
an implementation which does not emit all of the errors
SHOULD prioritise _Syntax Errors_ and _Data Model Errors_ over others.
MUST prioritise _Syntax Errors_ and _Data Model Errors_ over others.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we should take this today. We can make it MUST in 48.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree, for discussion for v48

@aphillips aphillips added LDML48 v48 Release and removed Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference LDML47 LDML 47 Release (Stable) labels Feb 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
errors Issues related to the errors section of the spec LDML48 v48 Release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants