W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

RE: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>RE: <Was: Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC Test Suite

From: Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:42:18 -0700
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team <ieajax@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <72F767ADE7C63540BE69CD2722A41F440E9C93E3CC@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

Jonas, I don't feel you have summarized our position properly.  We said it should be exception but we are willing to accommodate other implementations for the spec to have a leeway there and avoiding protracted discussions. We have absolutely no problem for the spec to clearly state that exception is the best API that should be followed. It is backed by technical arguments on my replies.  Let's expand more there if you feel those are inadequate.

Thanks!
Zhenbin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:58 PM
> To: Sunava Dutta
> Cc: Zhenbin Xu; Ian Hickson; public-webapps@w3.org; IE8 Core AJAX SWAT
> Team
> Subject: Re: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>RE: <Was:
> Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC
> Test Suite
>
> Sunava Dutta wrote:
> >> The argument for returning null is that it makes for a cleaner API,
> >> exceptions should only be thrown in exceptional circumstances. And
> >> based
> >> on available data it doesn't seem like sites currently care one way
> or
> >> another, so I think we should go for the cleaner API.
> >>
> >> What is the argument for throwing an exception?
> >>
> >> / Jonas
> >
> > [Sunava Dutta] I can't believe you asked that question after all the
> discussions that just happened on that with Ian, Zhenbin and you. With
> all due respect, is this an 'engage and lock' until someone gets
> frustrated and quits strategy or is there something outside of
> technical arguments that Mozilla is concerned about? -:)
>
> Not at all. I'm basing my arguments on technical merits. The argument
> from microsoft seems to be "we want to throw exceptions because that is
> what we are doing now and we are worried changing our implementation
> will break existing websites".
>
> However my counter argument is that other browsers have not followed
> microsofts implementation in this regard and this does not seem to have
> caused any interoperability issues. Therefore we should use the API
> that
> results in the best API.
>
> I have yet to see any counter argument from microsoft on this point
> other than "we think the spec should allow both exceptions and
> returning
> null", however this goes against the goals of the spec and so I don't
> see this as an option.
>
> I know there is a lot of miscommunication going on right now, which is
> why I have been trying to describe my reasonings and the w3c process in
> the past few mails.
>
> If the two parties can't decide on an issue the best cause of action is
> to summarize the technical arguments (which includes interoperability)
> for all solutions and then take a decision together based on those
> technical arguments.
>
> / Jonas
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 19:42:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:26 GMT