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

On 08 Aug 2014, at 18:58, Domenic Denicola <> wrote:

> From: Kostiainen, Anssi <>
>> 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.

Makes sense, thanks for the confirmation.



Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 08:47:45 UTC