Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure
Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> Sat, 31 January 2009 21:37 UTC
Return-Path: <tap-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tap-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E443A67E9; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:37:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261BC3A67E9 for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.285
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.314, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Hx-t5HFAaNI for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EB7923A69E7 for <tap@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2009 21:37:31 -0000
Received: from static-87-79-236-202.netcologne.de (EHLO klangraum) [87.79.236.202] by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 31 Jan 2009 22:37:31 +0100
X-Authenticated: #163624
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/zrRZFdv3zoeIeyHfAcVq+PVriIZJDJklipM9j5d jN9N8/acQtep3M
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:20 +0100
From: Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>
To: tap@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20090131213720.GB30031@klangraum.plasmasturm.org>
Mail-Followup-To: tap@ietf.org
References: <4984B200.6060907@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4984B200.6060907@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.77
Subject: Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure
X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <tap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/tap>
List-Post: <mailto:tap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tap-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tap-bounces@ietf.org
* Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> [2009-01-31 21:20]: > Generally prefer failure-with-warning over parse error for > valid but sort of nonsense output? Basically. I think we should differentiate between syntactical and semantic errors. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ tap mailing list tap@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap
- [tap] Parse error vs failure Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Aristotle Pagaltzis
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure David E. Wheeler
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Michael Peters
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Steffen Schwigon
- Re: [tap] [offlist] Re: Parse error vs failure Aristotle Pagaltzis
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Ovid
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Steffen Schwigon
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Aristotle Pagaltzis
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Andy Armstrong
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Andy Armstrong
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Michael G Schwern
- Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure Steffen Schwigon