- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:25:03 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:19:21 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> For example an web HTML editor. The editor lets you wysiwyg edit the
> page as well as drop in images. Dropping in images creates a <img
> src="uri-here" alt="..."> element. The edited page can then be saved
> in localStorage, sent to the server using XHR, or posted to a parent
> iframe using postMessage.
>
> It's possible, but very clunky, to always send images separately and
> then refresh the inline uris any time the page is to be displayed.
Fair enough.
>>> It seems useful to use the same code for people that want to display
>>> error messages to the user, this way you can either pass the value in
>>> the DOM event or from an exception to the same function.
>>
>> If you use the same constant name you can still do that.
>
> I don't understand. The use case is:
>
> A page has a function to deal with displaying error messages to the
> user. The function looks something like:
>
> function displayError(errorNumber) {
> var errorString = getLocalizedErrorMessage(errorNumber);
> document.getElementById("errorMessage").nodeValue = errorString;
> errorDialog.classList.add("displayed");
> cancelTimeout(gErrorUITimeout);
> gErrorUITimeout = setTimeout(hideError, 5000);
> }
If instead of errorNumber you passed the object you could do things like
if (obj.SECURITY_ERR == obj.code) {
...
}
which is what I meant.
Also, I'll note that you carefully snipped my inconsistency argument!
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2009 13:25:46 UTC