W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-expath@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Binary Module error codes

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:35:35 +0100
Cc: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>, EXPath CG <public-expath@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5C69ACD1-B876-49EF-869F-094FE36CC308@saxonica.com>
To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
> 
> 
>  I think it would be cleaner actually to have the error codes in
> the module namespace.  

+1

I've always thought the 8-character structured codes of the QT specs reminded me of the COBOL era. I resisted them but it wasn't worth a fight. But if we're changing the namespace rules, we could also go for meaningful local names, e.g. 

bin:NegativeOffset
bin:OctetOutOfRange
bin:EmptySearchArgument

It would add a little to program readability.

However, your suggestion that it's still possible to change the rules for other specs makes me wonder: how are we going to get the specs to a point where we deem them frozen? We can't just leave them sitting around as drafts for ever, changing them when we feel like it.

Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 10:36:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:20 UTC