- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:28:13 -0700
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Cc: W3C Canvas Spec <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, HTML-related tests <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>, Tietao Wang <tietaow@opera.com>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDD4s6fm6TwhOwOOdohaA3fcZN8Us2VH+8qTcGqjYrjH-g@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry, I was confused about the particular API call you were referring to. Also, are you a web developer or do you work on a browser? (I thought you were a developer) There is indeed a trend to be more forgiving in the user facing APIs. If Firefox also moves to not throwing, I would be happy to change the Canvas spec. We should pick up the conversation on the WhatWG mailing list again so we can get close this issue. Last I heard, people were reluctant to change since there were already 2 shipping implementations and I was almost ready to integrate a WebKit patch to fix the behavior. Rik On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>wrote: > (13/03/22 3:45), Rik Cabanier wrote: > > The spec was changed at the last minute by the WhatWG and it was actually > > done by accident. (Cameron did a global replace for WebIDL.) > > How would doing a global replace for WebIDL change the spec prose? Just > curious. > > > The W3C version reversed that change since the change was unintentional > and > > there were already 2 independent implementations. Ian decided that the > new > > prose made more sense and just left it in. > > roc seemed to indicate that he has a patch for removing these errors[1] > (although I haven't found the relevant Bugzilla bug) so "having 2 > independent implementations" doesn't seem like a stable assertion. > > Should we raise a discussion on the WHATWG list if we intend to keep the > current prose in the W3C version as it is? > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Mar/0020 > > > As a developer you should try to catch the exception since both Firefox > and > > IE will throw. This will make your code work everywhere. > > Not sure what you mean here. This doesn't look like an argument against > the backwards-compat argument. As UA developers, we don't want to do > unnecessary Web evangelism. As Web developer, I'd say using try and > catch in JS is not as common as in other languages. > > > If those browser change their behavior, we will update the spec > > accordingly (but you will still have to account for old browsers) > > A UA needs to account for old contents. > > >> 2. Compatibility > >> > >> Currently only WebKit implements the WHATWG behavior (not throwing). > >> However, it seems very likely that this part of the Web (the WebKit Web > >> :( ) is already depending on drawImage not throwing. Google > >> "IndexSizeError" gives [3][4][5], and I bet there are much more. Also, > >> it is known that getting the Android WebView to change is hard, and > >> therefore not throwing seems like the way to converge. > >> > >> > >> Anyway, the baseline is that we shouldn't have a difference between the > >> two specs. > >> > >> [3] https://github.com/Animatron/player/pull/70 > >> [4] https://github.com/aduros/flambe/issues/55 > >> [5] http://groups.google.com/group/melonjs/msg/571b36150fd2760b > > Cheers, > Kenny > -- > Web Specialist, Opera Sphinx Game Force, Oupeng Browser, Beijing > Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/ >
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 04:28:40 UTC