Re: Possible Constraint Syntax Compromise

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry <
tterriberry@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>> Out of those three, all the people I talked to preferred #3, which is
>> why I have proposed it.  If there is something we are all missing about
>> WebIDL that gives an easier exit from this conundrum, that would be
>> welcome news.
>>
>
> No, it does not surprise me this is not expressible in WebIDL, so I guess
> it will not throw an exception. But we're still required by contract to
> call either the success or error callback, and what it sounded like you
> were saying was that the browser was free to ignore the constraint
> completely and return success.


​Yes, that is what I am proposing.​

> ​
>