Re: New issue: error recovery practices (Re: Proposed TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use)

Chris Lilley wrote:

> RL> This is the type of question it would be nice to answer.  Perhaps I'm
> RL> bundling up many issues in a single request, but I'm not sure I know how
> RL> to break this up into bite-sized chunks.  If there are suggestions, I'd
> RL> like to hear them.
> As would I.

OK, let's try <stares blankly at screen for 10 minutes>

It is architecturally sound, when designing a protocol or a language, to 
provide normative specification for correct behavior in the face of 
incorrect data.  This is observed to increase robustness and 
interoperability, and improve the quality of the software that processes 
the data.

Examples of such architecturally sound specifications are [insert ref to 
XML] and [a couple of other examples of good practice, hopefully at a 
different level than XML in the protocol stack, and hopefully other than 
"halt and catch fire"... I think Chris claims this for SVG?].

Examples of bad practice in this area are [insert reference to something 
that leaves the picture fuzzy].

I think maybe the architectural point is not what degree of tolerance or 
draconianism the designer decrees, but that they take the trouble to 
specify what to do when things go wrong.

This seems like basic common sense and not something that we should be 
having to point out ex cathedra... is it worth taking up? -Tim

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 20:26:51 UTC