- From: Nilsson, Claes1 <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:49:41 +0200
- To: 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Ok, thanks for this information Anne. I guess that I should keep the current solution in the Raw Socket API until the DOMException solution has been defined in the DOM specification. BR Claes > -----Original Message----- > From: annevankesteren@gmail.com [mailto:annevankesteren@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren > Sent: den 6 augusti 2013 11:54 > To: Nilsson, Claes1 > Cc: www-dom@w3.org; public-sysapps@w3.org > Subject: Re: [DOMError]: Subclassing DOMError to increase granularity > of error handling? > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Nilsson, Claes1 > <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote: > > WDYT about this approach? Is this a reasonable solution? > > DOMError is going away. We only need DOMException. Allen (editor of > ECMAScript) did suggest we do something like what you suggest. Have > DOMException.prototype.subname which gives a more detailed name and > ideally have DOMException.name be "DOMException" but we can probably no > longer do that. Still need to work out the details here unfortunately > as apparently last time we thought we figured error handling out we > didn't :/ > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 10:50:11 UTC