Re: Error definition

Dave Pawson writes:

> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 at 17:26, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> wrote:

> IMHO a bug in the processor does not give me 3, hence it is an error.

The dictionary tells us that "error" describes a situation in which
someone makes a mistake by violating a rule.

On your view, in the situation you describe, who made the mistake? Who
committed the error? What rule did they violate?

> btw, I'm not requiring anything of anyone. I'm putting forward my
> view, as you do.

And I'm trying to understand it.

If a processor fails to produce an XML parse tree for the input and
instead produces diagnostic information saying something like "this
input does not match the grammar; further details below ...", does that
suffice for your purposes?  Or is it necessary that the word "error" be
used in the message?

Is it necessary for your goals with respect to ixml that the spec use
the word "error" to describe the situation in which you do not get your
expected output?

Do problems arise if the word "error" is not used in the spec when
describing that situation?

> I am a (potential) user, I think a user view as important as any.
> And (again) I'm not imposing my view, simply presenting it, as I said
> in my original post.

My apologies for misunderstanding.  

> Do you wish to build a playground for devs only?

Not particularly.  I would like a playground that is open to all and not
marked as closed off to me.


>> > AFAICT - it's an error that needs some debugging.

Again - who committed the error?

>> If someone lied to you, or someone failed to follow the rules of a
>> grammar, why should that be a violation of the rules of ixml?

> Obfuscation Michael?

Thank you, no more for me right now. Thank you for offering.


-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com

Received on Sunday, 6 February 2022 14:15:18 UTC