- From: Kartikaya Gupta <lists.webapps@stakface.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:05:36 +0000
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:28:25 +0100, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > > Actually, clearing it when you invoke send() should be enough. Made that > change to the editor drafts. > I see the change in the XHR2 draft, but not the XHR draft. > > Also, will the IDL be updated to reflect exceptions thrown from the > > various methods and property accessors? This may already be on the to-do > > list, but I thought I'd mention it in case it wasn't. > > I was not planning on doing this. It makes the IDL unreadable in my > opinion and I believe it is not required in Web IDL (and if it is we > should change that :-)). > It does hamper readability somewhat, but it also increases usefulness. I guess the question is whether the IDL is informative or normative. If it's normative, then I think the exceptions should be added for correctness. The [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes are much worse for readability, IMO. And on the topic of IDL, I assume you're sticking with your plan of not specifying a module/namespace? Cheers, kats
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:06:27 UTC