- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:51:04 -0400
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 9/30/11 9:46 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: > Hi Arun, > > Thanks for the follow-up - you beat me to it. We've been reviewing this in > the context of the other specs and, as Israel outlined for IndexedDB, we're > happy with the new WebIDL approach. > > I think we should go ahead and migrate the File API exceptions to this new > model and use ISSUE-182 to drive that change. Adrian, That's great :) Just to clarify from a File API perspective, are you ok with an OperationNotAllowed exception, *or* are you advocating reuse of DOMException with OperationNotAllowed like how IndexedDB is doing? I'm unclear whether I should change what is in the editor's draft now. A somewhat affiliated question is whether there should be a "message" attribute in our FileException and OperationNotAllowed exceptions (and in FileError). -- A*
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 18:51:38 UTC