W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] ReSpec.js changes appears to have broken the IndexedDB spec

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:55:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-QJjWuJQVvzLVSiAbWd+TosbYTgV+-MmzHnetb3wH7sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thursday, March 22, 2012, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I've fielded many questions from developers who were confused by
those exception tables. The tables imply that as you're debugging code and
are looking at a caught exception that you can infer everything you need to
know by looking it up by type in the table. But the table text is not
specific enough to really diagnose the issue, since (at least in the case
of methods) it speaks in generalities rather than the specific steps that
led to the exception being thrown.
> The algorithmic steps that outline when an exception is thrown are
somewhat less obvious (i.e. you have to find the exception and work
backwards through the algorithm to determine which condition was hit at
what step) but the result is far more precise.
> This applies more to method calls with multiple steps than attributes
that either raise or return a value depending on state checks.

Are you referring to the general Exceptions table here:


Or to the tables after each function that we had before the respec change,
for example here


/ Jonas

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Jonas,
>> >
>> > On Mar 22, 2012, at 03:41 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> It appears that something has changed in respec which causes IndexedDB
>> >> to no longer show the "Exceptions" section for all functions and
>> >> attributes. IndexedDB relies on the text in the Exceptions section to
>> >> define a lot of normative requirements which means that the spec
>> >> currently is very ambiguous in many areas.
>> >>
>> >> Robin, was this an intentional change in respec? Is there an old
>> >> version of the script anywhere that we can link to?
>> >
>> > Yes, this was announced to spec-prod (but presumably not everyone
reads that...):
>> >
>> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2012JanMar/0018.html
>> >
>> > The problem is basically that "raises" is no longer in WebIDL so I had
to eventually pull it too lest I generate invalid WebIDL.
>> >
>> > There isn't an old version but since this is CVS presumably there's
some kind of arcane syntax that makes it possible to get it. Perhaps more
usefully, I'd be happy to figure out a way to still express that
information but without ties to deprecated WebIDL constructs (preferably
requiring minimal spec changes).
>> >
>> > Sorry about that, I was hoping that people would either a) have moved
on from old WebIDL syntax, b) see the announcement on spec-prod, or c)
notice the change and scream immediately. Suggestions for a better protocol
to handle this sort of change (it's the first of its kind, but possibly not
the last) are much welcome.
>> Simply displaying a table of exceptions after the parameters list
>> seems like it would be WebIDL compatible. I.e. we wouldn't need the
>> 'raises' syntax inside the IDL itself, but having a separate
>> description of the various exceptions thrown by a function seems like
>> it could be useful.
>> Possibly have less focus on the Exception interface-type since it's
>> almost always going to be DOMException.
>> / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 16:55:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:39 UTC