- From: Andreas Tolfsen <ato@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:38:29 +0000
- To: Jason Leyba <jleyba@google.com>
- Cc: public-browser-tools-testing <public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Jason Leyba <jleyba@google.com> wrote: > On Mon Nov 17 2014 at 12:17:54 PM Andreas Tolfsen <ato@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Jason Leyba <jleyba@google.com> wrote: >> > Wouldn't this be covered by "unsupported operation"? >> >> I think that would fit well. Thanks for the quick reply! >> >> But just to clarify: We made the status codes strings so that the raw >> wire protocol could more easily be read by humans, or so that it would >> be possible to extend it? > > IIRC it was to improve readability. To support extensions we probably just > need a prefix scheme (e.g. "-moz failure") and graceful fallback to > "unknown error". Extensions to the protocol are currently only possible for command names and capabilities. It would then make sense to generalise that concept and say that capability key names, command names, and status codes can be expected using that concept definition.
Received on Monday, 17 November 2014 20:38:59 UTC