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

From: Rick Waldron [] 
> 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