This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
"4.5 Good Practice A: Define an error handling mechanism" -- another useful technique that could be mentioned here is designing the spec so that there are few ways to get into an error case (for example, defining the meaning of every combination of language construct). Also, this section should spend more time on the concepts of mustIgnore and mustUnderstand (and why the camelCase?). Both have their places: mustUnderstand is important when data corruption could end up having critical consequences (e.g. a corrupted credit card transaction could be costly), whereas mustIgnore is important when the worst effect data corruption could have is a slightly degraded rendering (e.g. a corrupted stylesheet).
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0021.html (dm) Two kinds of ignore 1. pass through unchanged, 2 throw it away (dh) should we add something to Spec GL? anyone volunteer? (kd) I will. karl will make a proposal on this issue
http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-qa-minutes karl: I proposed a new text for the section on error mechanisms ... wrt 4.5 GP A, in response to Ian Hickson's comment ... about the lack of definition of "must understand" / "must ignore" [failing comments from the WG, this is pushed back to a next teleconf]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html KD and DH wrote something about it. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0007 & http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0019 As DH's draft was considered clearer, it was adopted without dissention. This item is now resolved.
setting version to LC in case of future use