- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:57:42 +0100
- To: public-web-perf@w3.org
On Mon 14 Nov 2011 09:00:39 AM CET, Sigbjørn Vik wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:33:03 +0100, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu 10 Nov 2011 04:22:38 PM CET, Sigbjørn Vik wrote: >>> Some questions about missing definitions of exceptions, all other >>> comments are about the language used. >>> >>> Method exceptions >>> ================= >>> clearResourceTimings - no exceptions if called with arguments? >>> setResourceTimingBufferSize - no exceptions if called with no >>> arguments, a double or a string? >>> Does this mean we are missing test cases for this as well? Calling >>> setResourceTimingBufferSize with a variable that with some goodwill >>> can be parsed as an integer is an area ripe for incompatibilities >>> unless specified. We really need both TCs and a specification on >>> this before moving further. >> >> These cases should be covered by WebIDL > > Thanks, I looked, but couldn't find it there, but I will believe you > ;) It should be easy enough to reference the IDL in the exception > section then, and to make some TCs available, so we can test the > requirements of the specification. > Sure, I am all in favour of testing all the requirements of the spec, including the ones in IDL blocks :) Also, since the current wording evidently causes confusion, I recommend changing it to avoid the misleading implication that these methods will never throw.
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 12:58:12 UTC