[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: error codes
> From: "Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange)" <email@example.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:02:22 -0700
> There seems to be an assumption that whenever there is human-readable text
> included, that the server must be able to translate that into the
> appropriate language for the user. Why is that?
I see it as two valid new points.
1) There are some status messages that can't be covered
with generic messages numbers.
2) Forcing a CUA in France or Japan to display CS status
messages of a non-critical nature in English is bad manners.
> Antoine's example of a
> specific dialect is a good example why we can't expect that to happen.
> Instead, I've always understood text-based error messages in protocols to be
> a convenience for protocol and implementation designers, testers, coders,
> debuggers, system administrators, etc. This makes it possible to use
> strings which are brief but informative to techies, like "BADLY FORMATTED
Perhaps a compromise.
Maybe we can have some kind of tag or rule so that the CUA knows
that a specific status message from the CS is not a typical status
message, but something that the CUA really needs to display to the user.
Perhaps a '*' could be used to mean "this really needs to be seen
by a user":
1.2.3 cap://host.com/a/b/c * "this needs to be displayed"
Most IMAP server messages are not displayed to the users. So adding
them in the same way as IMAP I think would simply not gain anything
at all. They would not be displayed anyway.
Also I think the standard status messages should be optional.