Re: [ResourceTiming] Exceptions and language use

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