Skip to content

Recovery from data model errors #735

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

Closed
catamorphism opened this issue Mar 19, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Recovery from data model errors #735

catamorphism opened this issue Mar 19, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference errors Issues related to the errors section of the spec LDML46 LDML46 Release (Tech Preview - October 2024) resolve-candidate This issue appears to have been answered or resolved, and may be closed soon. specification Issue affects the specification

Comments

@catamorphism
Copy link
Collaborator

I think we haven't decided yet whether data model errors should be recoverable. The current version of formatting.md says they are not recoverable:

If the message being formatted has any Syntax Errors or Data Model Errors, the result of pattern selection MUST be a pattern resolving to a single fallback value using the message's fallback string defined in the formatting context or if this is not available or empty, the U+FFFD REPLACEMENT CHARACTER �.

However, #703 would delete "data model errors" from that text.

So, do we want to require the behavior as currently specified; or leave it up to the implementation whether to replace a smaller piece of the message with a fallback, or replace the entire message with a fallback?

@catamorphism catamorphism added specification Issue affects the specification errors Issues related to the errors section of the spec LDML46 LDML46 Release (Tech Preview - October 2024) labels Mar 19, 2024
@macchiati
Copy link
Member

This feels like a post-45 issue.

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

eemeli commented Sep 8, 2024

I believe we've confirmed that data model errors are not considered recoverable?

@eemeli eemeli added the resolve-candidate This issue appears to have been answered or resolved, and may be closed soon. label Sep 8, 2024
@aphillips aphillips added the Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference label Sep 9, 2024
@aphillips
Copy link
Member

reopen if disagreement. 2024-09-10 closing

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference errors Issues related to the errors section of the spec LDML46 LDML46 Release (Tech Preview - October 2024) resolve-candidate This issue appears to have been answered or resolved, and may be closed soon. specification Issue affects the specification
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants