Re: RFC: error code strings from Andreas Tolf Tolfsen on 2013-01-17 (public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org from January to March 2013)

From: Andreas Tolf Tolfsen <andreastt@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:01:40 +0100
To: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
Message-ID: <50F81254.7090204@opera.com>

On 01/17/2013 03:56 PM, Simon Stewart wrote:
> 
> Based on feedback from early drafts, we're moving from status codes being
> reported as integers to using strings. I'd appreciate early feedback on the
> proposed change to the spec. Notably, I'd like to know whether people
> prefer the "lower case with spaces" approach or would prefer "EALLSHOUTY"
> or "CamelCasedWithNoSpaces"?
> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webdriver/raw-file/tip/webdriver-spec.html#error-codes

Part of the argument for moving to use strings for error codes was to
make the wire protocol more obvious for humans.  Since we are going with
strings, I don't see any particular reason why we'd need to use
“variable name” syntax on them.

The strings should be straight forward, and be able to be understood by
a human inspecting the communication.

Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:02:13 UTC