- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:39:43 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13319
Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |travil@microsoft.com
--- Comment #4 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> 2011-12-09 23:39:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Does anyone implement this? What the spec says today is intended to match
> implementations. I don't mind augmenting it if implementations already do it or
> if we can show that it won't break anything.
I did some static analysis over our Bing web data. It was a fairly small sample
size (1.2 M sites), but led me to some basic conclusions:
1. Most sites use a simple function to swallow any error notifications:
window.onerror = function() { return true; }
2. Some sites provide parameters to catch each of the three preexisting data
points (though they're often not even used):
window.onerror = function(a,b,c) { return true; };
3. A few sites just expect an Error object (and don't use is)
window.onerror = function(e) { return true; }
I'm providing this info as informative--I don't think it's conclusive.
Given the data I've seen, I don't believe that the proposed change would break
anything. However, it's given me enough confidence to move forward with a
change to IE10. We'll try to ship it and see if there's any significant impact.
If not, I'd like to push forward with this change.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 23:39:56 UTC