W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Comment/Suggestion: DOM L3 L&S

From: <Duncan_Stodart@insession.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:28:09 +1100
To: "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@acm.org>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF75B7FFE.E272BDE9-ONCA256C25.00127B93-CA256C25.001329C5@LocalDomain>
Open to suggestions.  Coming from Apache's Xerces C++ implementation I'd 
suggest an URL.

http://www.w3c.org/DOM/DOMErrrors for error codes defined as part of the 
DOM standard
http://www.apache.org/something here for Apache specific error codes.

I know this does raise issues wrt to mapping implementation errors to w3c 
defined errors, and also implementations must decide when to return DOM 
error codes and when they should return error codes in other domains but I 
can't see a way to allow callers to have fine granularity of control any 
other way.  This also allows W3C to grow the error code set as the general 
community require yet allowing implementations to press ahead without 
extending the standard through proprietry interfaces/methods.

"Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@acm.org>
30/08/2002 01:11 PM

        To:     Duncan_Stodart@insession.com
        cc:     www-dom@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Comment/Suggestion: DOM L3 L&S

Duncan_Stodart@insession.com writes:
 > My suggestion is to extent the exising DOMError interface to
 > include two more read only attributes: domain (DOMString) and error
 > code (unsigned short).

From your description, it sounds like "domain" will be identify some
broad area in which the error codes will be interpreted; is this
right?  Would example domains be things like "XML Conformance",
"System Error", ...?


Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 23:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:10 UTC