- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:52:10 -0400
- To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 6/30/15 2:31 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: > On 2015-06-19 00:54, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: >> In hindsight, I think it's clear that getUserMedia({ }) should be a >> TypeError rather than a NotSupportedError. >> >> Having { lasers: true } throw NotSupportedError may sound good, but >> gives the wrong impression, as it leads to surprise when { lasers: true, >> audio: true } succeeds without error. >> >> More importantly, the arrival of the required keyword for dictionary >> members in WebIDL suggests that empty dictionaries in new APIs are more >> likely to throw TypeError than anything else. >> >> Even though the 'required' keyword wont work in our particular case, who >> knows, WebIDL may someday add a way to specify mutually-exclusive >> required members, and we'd wish we'd made this change now. >> >> This also aligns well with the recent move to make this validation >> synchronous #182 > To clarify, empty dictionaries in new APIs throw TypeError when there is > at least one required member specified for those dictionaries, right? Right. > If there's a trend towards specifying dictionaries more strictly (like > with required) then I think TypeError is the way to go. That would make > our "custom requirements", described in prose, indistinguishable from > errors enforced by WebIDL extensions such as the required keyword. Exactly. > /Adam .: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 13:52:41 UTC