W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2014

RE: DAP-ISSUE-168: getBattery() vs. requestBattery() pattern [Battery Status API]

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:58:44 +0000
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "Device APIs Working Group" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1407513526619.52009@domenicdenicola.com>
From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>

> To address this part of Domenic’s feedback, however, I suggest we revise the following normative prose:

LGTM, thanks!

> Is a promise that cannot reject (IOW “the user agent MUST NOT reject the promise ...”) a bad practice to be avoided at all cost?

Nope, that's fine! It's just like a function that can never throw.

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 15:59:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:11 UTC