W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > June 2005

[Bug 1498] New: Feature request: namespace for errors, elaborated error code descriptions

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:48:46 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1DiKD8-0005Sa-Ds@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1498

           Summary: Feature request: namespace for errors, elaborated error
                    code descriptions
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Last Call drafts
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSLT 2.0
        AssignedTo: mike@saxonica.com
        ReportedBy: frans.englich@telia.com
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


In the absence of deeper knowledge in this, I do a feature request:

XPath 2.0 have, as per "2.3.2 Identifying and Reporting Errors", a thorough
description of errors: the structure of the error identifier is explained, and
errors have assigned a namespace. I find the description of the identifiers
informative and gives a background which hence has an pedagogical role. It also
brings meaning to the codes, instead of being arbitrary strings. The namespace
allows implementations to swiftly identify errors, in my opinion.

XSLT 2.0 have no namespace, and no description of how the error codes are
constructed, when considering for example section "E Summary of Error Conditions
(Non-Normative)" and "2.9 Error Handling". Here are the reasons I think exists
for having descriptions and a namespace for error codes in XSLT:

* It is practical and informative to have the structure of error codes
described(as above). It would also be consistent with XPath 2.0. A user might
want to understand an XSLT error code to the same degree as one from XPath 2.0;
 the languages are highly related.

* Errors from XPath 2.0 have a namespace but errors in XSLT 2.0 have not, and
the two languages are highly related. Without asserting that a namespace for
errors is good, it can be concluded that whatever a namespace "adds" for XPath,
is not added for XSLT. If a namespace is considered a bad idea, it can hence be
questioned why XPath has one, if assuming the differences between the two
languages can not justify it.

I am personally of the opinion that a namespace would be of interest because I
find namespaces more "exactly" defined than null-namespaces, and the
inconsistency with XPath worries me for the "usual" broad reasons of inconsistency.

References and background are according to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xpath20-20050404/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xslt20-20050404/


Cheers,
Frans
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 22:48:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:38 GMT