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: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:09:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHfnhfo0HjaDaSV8MdyiycHo3b2AWEoCYWEteje3kfkG2syRMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.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>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.

Fair enought, apologies for the noise. Thanks!

Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 18:10:24 UTC

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