Re: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

> From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.rick@gmail.com]
> >
> > I wasn't specific enough in my original question, but I did note that I
> wasn't referring to construction exceptions, so I'm guessing by your
> response that you actually _just_ meant testing for "constructability". I
> apologize for not being clearer, but I was actually referring to the URL
> string parameter itself, and how to test if passing an argument to the
> constructor is supported (the example I gave falls short of answering that
> question).
> >
> >Loosely related... will invalid URL string parameters throw in the same
> manner that invalid selectors throw? eg. context.querySelector("?")
>
> Hmm, that's not a question for WebIDL, as far as I know. The spec defining
> the constructor behavior would need to specify that.
>

Fair enought, apologies for the noise. Thanks!

Rick