W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:58:01 +0000
To: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B383847E93B@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.rick@gmail.com] 
> I wasn't specific enough in my original question, but I did note that I wasn't referring to construction exceptions, so I'm guessing by your response that you actually _just_ meant testing for "constructability". I apologize for not being clearer, but I was actually referring to the URL string parameter itself, and how to test if passing an argument to the constructor is supported (the example I gave falls short of answering that question). 
>Loosely related... will invalid URL string parameters throw in the same manner that invalid selectors throw? eg. context.querySelector("?")

Hmm, that's not a question for WebIDL, as far as I know. The spec defining the constructor behavior would need to specify that.
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:07 UTC