- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 09:34:12 +0100
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
On Thursday, 3 May 2012 at 09:00, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:56:49 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc (mailto:jonas@sicking.cc)> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com (mailto:annevk@opera.com)> > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:46:27 -0700, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc (mailto: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. > > > > > > > > I suspect that's not always defined no. It doesn't seem like a huge > > deal, but it's definitely another argument for moving away from > > depending on the current style. > > > > Yes, I would much prefer if specs currently using ReSpec moved towards > using algorithms like the HTML spec. It's much clearer and is less likely > to have gaping holes for edge cases. > I strongly agree, but this is not Respec's fault. It's just a particular(ly bad) editorial style adopted by some people. There is nothing in Respec that prevents an editor from defining the algorithms properly and then linking to them (as is done in HTML and DOM4). -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 08:34:49 UTC