W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [File API] Issue 182 about OperationNotAllowed

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:51:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4E8A0418.6010609@mozilla.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 9/30/11 9:46 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> Hi Arun,
> Thanks for the follow-up - you beat me to it. We've been reviewing this in
> the context of the other specs and, as Israel outlined for IndexedDB, we're
> happy with the new WebIDL approach.
> I think we should go ahead and migrate the File API exceptions to this new
> model and use ISSUE-182 to drive that change.


That's great :)  Just to clarify from a File API perspective, are you ok 
with an OperationNotAllowed exception, *or* are you advocating reuse of 
DOMException with OperationNotAllowed like how IndexedDB is doing?  I'm 
unclear whether I should change what is in the editor's draft now.

A somewhat affiliated question is whether there should be a "message" 
attribute in our FileException and OperationNotAllowed exceptions (and 
in FileError).

-- A*
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 18:51:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:36 UTC