- From: Carsten Orthbandt <carsten@pixeltamer.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:45:23 +0200
- To: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jim Ley schrieb: > Logging of errors is something that should be entirely down to the > application, there is no need for the spec to require certain things be > logged in an error console or not - or even the existence of an error > console - whilst I'm very sympathetic for your desire to make mozilla > based logging more useful, I do not believe changing the specification > here, and am entirely happy with the relevant part of the spec, with the > content sniffing. My wording here was probably unclear. My intent is not to have the spec define how or when an UA should report errors. I'd like the spec to define what is an actual error in the processing and what are merely different execution paths of the algorithms laid out. Having a XML Content-Type but non-well-formed content would constitute an error. Not having XML content when it wasn't specified as XML in the first place would not be an error. There already are definitions of when to throw an exception. There are also definitions of when object fields have to be set to NULL. What is left out is the distinction between a) set to NULL and it's ok and within the spec b) set to NULL but that's because the response is NOT well-formed per spec (well-formed NOT meaning well-formed XML, just well-formed in terms of the XMLHttpRequest spec) Best regards, Carsten Orthbandt pixeltamer.net c/o Carsten Orthbandt Baumschulenstrasse 102 12437 Berlin +49 (0) 30 34347690
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 07:45:31 UTC