W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] Checked in fix for ReSpec issue

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 14:07:54 -0700
To: "Webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Message-ID: <op.wdo8zgbz64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:46:27 -0700, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> I certainly agree that it would be better to move the definition of
> when to throw exceptions into the prose for each function and
> attribute, but that's a big change that I don't think we should block
> on. (In fact, it might be big enough that we don't want to take it on
> at all, but that's something we shouldn't decide on here).

Is the order of exceptions defined? E.g. if a method can throw two  
different exceptions and you violate both requirements, which exception  
throws? That's one of the minor problems this legacy DOM-style gives.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 21:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:33 UTC