On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
>> uri      The diagnostic URI.
>> details  Any supplementary explanation available.
>> message  A human readable message to display to the end user.
>> <details> could be type ANY, but currently isn't.

>> And some of these are machine readable. Look at the diagnostics list
>> for details...

> Yes - details was for technical information that a developer or systems
> admin might find useful in diagnosing the fault. Message was intended
> for a nice friendly non-techy message to display for end-users.
> But I'm still not sure when the machine readable nature of details crept
> in?

I don't think that they're -necessarily- machine readable. For example
diagnostic 1 has 'debugging information (traceback)' for the details which
is very unlikely to be machine readable.

OTOH, diagnostic 5 has the highest version number supported which would be
machine readable.

I think it 'crept in' between the meeting for 1.1 and its release when we
were fleshing out the diagnostic list and wanted to give example details.
There was quite some discussion about these, for example the character
offsets for issues with queries.

Rob


       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/