{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486/events","html_url":"https://github.com/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486","id":50033565,"number":486,"title":"XML output and error handling","user":{"login":"mkraetke","id":983392,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/983392?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke","html_url":"https://github.com/mkraetke","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mkraetke/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":11,"created_at":"2014-11-25T14:33:41Z","updated_at":"2015-06-17T08:27:17Z","closed_at":null,"body":"The XML output from epubcheck is very constrained. The message elements contain only a plaintext message with the encountered error.\r\n\r\n```\r\n<message>\r\n  OPF-003, WARN, [Item 'iTunesMetadata.plist' exists in the ePub, \r\n  but is not declared in the OPF manifest.], 978XXXXXXXXXX.epub\r\n</message>\r\n```\r\n\r\nCurrently, automatic error handling is only possible by string analysis. It would be helpful to have attributes besides the error message which provide \r\n * error code\r\n * file (e.g. 'iTunesMetadata.plist', '978XXXXXXXXXX.epub')\r\n * error type (e.g. 'error', 'warning')\r\n * source path (optional)\r\n\r\nThe XML output could be read as follows:\r\n\r\n```\r\n<message code=\"OPF-003\" type=\"warning\" sourcepath=\"/package/manifest[1]\">\r\n Item 'iTunesMetadata.plist' exists in the ePub, \r\n  but is not declared in the OPF manifest.\r\n</message>\r\n```"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/comments/112715643","html_url":"https://github.com/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486#issuecomment-112715643","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/IDPF/epubcheck/issues/486","id":112715643,"user":{"login":"rdeltour","id":520889,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/520889?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour","html_url":"https://github.com/rdeltour","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rdeltour/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-06-17T08:27:17Z","updated_at":"2015-06-17T08:27:17Z","body":"> Sure, it's not a critical issue, but changing a report schema is still a major change. Don't you think we should do this in 4.0 rather than in 4.0.2 or 4.1?\r\n> If we can agree on a better report schema and we know about your release schedule, @rdeltour, I can possibly take this issue.\r\n\r\nIt's precisely the problem: I do not have a strong suggestion, as I've personally never had a strong need for change (like @mkraetke I've used workarounds when needed).\r\n\r\nIf changing the report schema is deemed too big a change for a minor version update, we can still release this change as 4.1, 4.2 or whatever when it's ready.\r\n\r\nI'm not saying that I object to include it in 4.0, it's just that I don't have much time to find the best candidate or contact possible users (via the mailing list) and run a quick survey, so for now I'd rather keep the status quo.\r\nThat said, if you have a suggestion and want to implement it and contact the list, go for it! In terms of timeline, the sooner the better. There are still some issues left in the 4.0 milestone, but they shouldn't take long now that the hard part has been done.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n"}}