Re: A simpler Web service response format

* Henri Sivonen wrote:
>I don't see why the source needs to be identified. Surely the
>client invoking the checker knows what it sent as the input.

That's not what the text says. I want the report to identify what has
been checked, so for example the target of a redirect and the actual
location of content subject to content negotiation if available.

>"The descriptor should be extensible to allow for different location  
>addressing schemes"
>
>Then consumers of the format would need to support different  
>addressing schemes.

Not necessarily, a consumer that is just interested whether there is
anything wrong with the input could just ignore the exact position of
the errors.

>Since off-the-shelf libraries don't usually categorize errors like  
>that, introducing such categorization as an afterthought could well  
>go into the territory of diminishing returns, because the cost of  
>introducing categorization would be great compared to the benefit.

Well, the whole point of the document is to avoid doing too much as
an afterthought. If I were to write an XML processor I would clearly
identify whether errors it reports are WFC, VC, NS WFC, NS VC, vio-
lations or other errors (resource not found, out of memory, ...) to
enable precisely this kind of functionality.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 28 December 2006 01:40:05 UTC