Re: RTCError, DOMError, and... what happened?

On 12/10/2013 1:33 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Suggestion: we should define
>
> [Constructor(DOMString name, optional DOMString message = "")]
> interface RTCError {
>   readonly attribute DOMString name;
>   readonly attribute DOMString message;
> };
>
> with the comment
>
> "We intend to use DOMError as soon as there is a stable reference for 
> DOMError that contains both the name and the message field".
>
> We should also list the "name" values we use explicitly, and note 
> which ones are currently part of the DOM specification.
>
> It seems that given that we're publishing a W3C specification, we must 
> reference the W3C version of the spec, not the "living spec" - Anne 
> might be able to say what the schedule is like for that.
>

     Can't you have RTCError extend DOMError?

Gili