Re: [tap] Parse error vs failure

Michael Peters <mpeters@plusthree.com> Sun, 01 February 2009 00:49 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 DA6623A68CB; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:49:06 -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 7F59B3A68CB for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:49:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 sOoCV1oY6WVX for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.plusthree.com (mail.plusthree.com [70.42.42.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1563A6A8D for <tap@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (cpe-024-211-145-096.nc.res.rr.com [24.211.145.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.plusthree.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n110ekcQ017017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tap@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:40:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4984F0E4.8090001@plusthree.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:46:28 -0500
From: Michael Peters <mpeters@plusthree.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tap@ietf.org
References: <4984B200.6060907@pobox.com> <20090131213720.GB30031@klangraum.plasmasturm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090131213720.GB30031@klangraum.plasmasturm.org>
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tap-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tap-bounces@ietf.org

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * 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.

I agree. Syntax errors should be parse errors, but semantic errors should be failure-with-warning.

-- 
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP

_______________________________________________
tap mailing list
tap@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap