This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1047 - Additions to error mechanism section
Summary: Additions to error mechanism section
Status: RESOLVED REMIND
Alias: None
Product: QA
Classification: Unclassified
Component: QASpec-GL (show other bugs)
Version: LC-2004-11-22
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Karl Dubost
QA Contact: Karl Dubost
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-21 09:44 UTC by Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Modified: 2005-04-28 11:53 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-01-21 09:44:25 UTC
"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).
Comment 1 Karl Dubost 2005-03-03 17:34:52 UTC
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
Comment 2 Karl Dubost 2005-03-03 17:37:55 UTC
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]
Comment 3 Karl Dubost 2005-03-03 18:28:09 UTC
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.
Comment 4 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-04-28 11:53:51 UTC
setting version to LC in case of future use