W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] Checked in fix for ReSpec issue

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>
Message-ID: <op.wdp27iseidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:58 UTC