- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:28:59 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4595 ------- Comment #9 from tim@cbcl.co.uk 2007-07-17 13:28 ------- > So it would be clearer if it either said > undefined (raises XPST0001 on access) > or else > <code>none</code> (see FS 2.4.3) > respectively. Agreed. If the latter, what exception do you suggest should be thrown? Do you have any idea when this might be resolved one way or the other?
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 13:29:01 UTC