Re: Move to de-facto error reporting

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>
> ________________________________________
> > From: Stefan Håkansson LK [stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com]
> > On 2012-12-27 17:27, Eric Rescorla wrote
> > > I'm really not following what the advantage of this would be. What use
> > > cases does it
> > > enable that are not available with the current design?
> >
> > It enables no new use cases AFAIK - the advantage would be alignment
> > with how errors are dealt with in other newer web APIs. I'm skeptical to
> > doing these changes - I just wanted to point out that we could in
> > principle align.
>
> My motivation was noting the duplication of very similar error objects
> across the three proposed specs. Since these objects all introduce new
> surface area to the type system of the web platform (which are basically
> redundant), it seemed to be prudent to see if there was a better pattern
> available. It seems there is another pattern available, but it has a high
> relative spec cost (API shape/behavior updates) to make happen. At least
> with getUserMedia, I'll note that we are already planning to do something
> like Steven proposed with the synchronous getUserMedia changes.


I do not believe there is consensus on this point. I've seen a new
proposal from Martin, but haven't yet gone through it.

-Ekr