- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:00:30 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5795 --- Comment #25 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-07-29 16:00:30 --- I think we're in the realms of usability rather than conformance here: it's going to be very hard to formalize the rules on error handling to ensure all products are compatible in such cases. But I think the test suite needs to make assumptions about what's reasonable: for example it can legitimately assume that the implementation's limit on the length of strings will be greater than 10, and I don't think the expected results should be changed because some implementation blows its limits. I think that the rewrite from e[928] to error()[928] to () is simply poor design from a usability point of view. Once you've decided there is an error here you should take care to ensure the user knows about it. The difference with e[false()] is that the sequence of rewrites never went via error() to something else. Yes, arguably the processor should have tried harder to check for error conditions before doing the rewrite, but it's hard to argue against doing context-independent rewrites before starting to look at the context. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 16:01:05 UTC