Re: Comments on DOM Level 3 Core Nov-03 CR

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:53, Andrew Clover wrote:
> Fully agree, but I'd expect such a reliance situation to occur more readily
> with the exceptions-swallowed model than the exceptions-propagated model - it
> is possible a faulty filter throwing exceptions would go entirely unnoticed.

We reconsidered our change and change the specification as follows for
DataUserHandler, LSParserFilter, and LSSerializerFilter:
[[
DOM applications must not raised exceptions in a filter. The effect of
throwing exceptions from a filter is DOM implementation dependent.
]

(modulo, for the data handler, s/filter/data handler/)

Let us know if this satisfy your original comment.

> Oh, and I'd like to Ack-Agreement issues andrew1-andrew4 also. Cheers!

Thanks, this helps a lot when going to the Director,

Philippe