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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT