- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:35:35 +0100
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>, EXPath CG <public-expath@w3.org>
> > > I think it would be cleaner actually to have the error codes in > the module namespace. +1 I've always thought the 8-character structured codes of the QT specs reminded me of the COBOL era. I resisted them but it wasn't worth a fight. But if we're changing the namespace rules, we could also go for meaningful local names, e.g. bin:NegativeOffset bin:OctetOutOfRange bin:EmptySearchArgument It would add a little to program readability. However, your suggestion that it's still possible to change the rules for other specs makes me wonder: how are we going to get the specs to a point where we deem them frozen? We can't just leave them sitting around as drafts for ever, changing them when we feel like it. Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 10:36:07 UTC