- From: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:21:35 +0100
- To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
- Cc: Dorothy Hoskins <dorothy.hoskins@gmail.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2022 18:21:53 UTC
In finalising the EXPath.binary specification (http://expath.org/spec/binary#errors) we chose to use alphabetic error codes, that were meaningful when read (though admittedly only in English - perhaps an oversight). But they were detailed and did give you information on why the error had been raised. If an implementation can give a user more detailed information about why an error occurred, then I think they really should.. Sent from my iPad > On 19 Apr 2022, at 18:25, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@fromoldbooks.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 12:38 -0400, Dorothy Hoskins wrote: >> Hi, I favor short clear error messages tied to the specs and S001 >> seems >> fine to me. > > I'd be even happier with ixml-e-s001; the reason is that it's more > amenable to a Web search. > -- > Liam Quin, https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/ > Available for XML/Document/Information Architecture/XSLT/ > XSL/XQuery/Web/Text Processing/A11Y training, work & consulting. > Barefoot Web-slave, antique illustrations: http://www.fromoldbooks.org
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2022 18:21:53 UTC