- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:35:18 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5795 --- Comment #9 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-06-26 12:35:18 --- >do you still think it reasonable? I have found it necessary to be pragmatic with error situations: the criterion for what is reasonable is based on how helpful it is to the user. Failing to report a simple error that can be detected statically, and returning an empty sequence instead, does not seem helpful. I'm well aware that treating error() as item()* doesn't work in a static typing environment, but fortunately I don't have that problem. (Well, not fortunately, it was by deliberate choice...) But of course we're dealing with a test suite here, and it's testing for conformance not for usability. Unfortunately I don't think that static typing is spec'ed well enough to ensure interoperable results especially in error situations, so I personally think this is a losing battle. There's probably a chain of reasoning that says 42 is a valid answer to the query 2+2. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 12:35:54 UTC