Re: [errorHandling-20] CLOSED: What should specifications say about error handling?

Hi Chris,

Sorry for the delayed response on this issue.  I agree that
errorHandling-20 is handled acceptably and can be closed.  Thank you to
you and the rest of the team for tackling this issue.

I have issue with the backwards compatibility issue, but that is a
separate issue that I will reply to under separate cover.


On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 10:45, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 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]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]

Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 01:23:47 UTC