- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 05:42:18 +0000
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote: > I agree TypeError may be suitable. To be transparent, it would take significantly work for IE to implement this (we currently do not have the ability to throw script engine errors from DOM APIs). That's a solvable problem, but I'm not sure I understand its value. Why isn't providing a more descriptive error name (as currently spec'd) better for the developer? The way DOMException is done at the moment is incompatible with ECMAScript. We're trying to figure out a better way forward. The ECMAScript guys seem to argue for using descriptive messages rather than lots of different errror types. Error types are only useful if you want to create branching which does not seem to be the case here. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2014 05:42:45 UTC