- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 10:00:44 +0200
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:56:49 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:46:27 -0700, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> >> wrote: >>> >>> I certainly agree that it would be better to move the definition of >>> when to throw exceptions into the prose for each function and >>> attribute, but that's a big change that I don't think we should block >>> on. (In fact, it might be big enough that we don't want to take it on >>> at all, but that's something we shouldn't decide on here). >> >> Is the order of exceptions defined? E.g. if a method can throw two >> different >> exceptions and you violate both requirements, which exception throws? >> That's >> one of the minor problems this legacy DOM-style gives. > > I suspect that's not always defined no. It doesn't seem like a huge > deal, but it's definitely another argument for moving away from > depending on the current style. Yes, I would much prefer if specs currently using ReSpec moved towards using algorithms like the HTML spec. It's much clearer and is less likely to have gaping holes for edge cases. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 08:01:26 UTC