- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:48:26 -0700
- To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>> >> 02-C01 Condition Name >> >> Use name of precondition, not failure description: >> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/> > > Unless anyone objects, I'll make that change. > I do object (but not to the point of delaying quota). My reasoning is that using the negative, to express the condition that must be met, is hard to understand for the debugger/implementor/tester or support person. You see something like this: <D:error> <D:quota-not-exceeded/> </D:error> and think "Huh? My error is that quota is not exceeded? what's up with that? " I can even imagine bugs logged against implementors who correctly follow the spec. Furthermore, although this approach is consistent with the style in DeltaV, it's not consistent with the overall HTTP error style, which is to explain the error. E.g. "404 Not Found" rather than "404 Document Must Exist". Lisa
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:48:49 UTC