- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:45:47 +0100
- To: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hello Rob, At our Yokohama f2f meeting, the TAG noticed that many aspects of the issue you raised [1] and which we accepted as issue 20 [2] errorHandling-20: What should specifications say about error handling? are by now addressed in the current Architecture Document [3]. Specifically, section 1.2.3 [4] discusses error handling, requires specification of error handling, and establishes that silent recovery from errors is harmful, thus addressing your 'second guessing' point. Section 4.2 [5] discusses extensibility and versioning, what specifications should say about when to ignore extensions and when extensions must be understood. You also raised the issue of conformance to deprecated features, and suggested it might be a different issue. It seems that a deprecated feature is one that content authors and authoring tools should not produce, and that content consumers must understand. We propose therefore to close issue 20 as already addressed. Please let us know whether you are satisfied with this outcome. Thanks again for your help and contributions, [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002May/0124 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#errorHandling-20 [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031128 [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031128/#error-handling [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031128/#ext-version -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 13:45:48 UTC