- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:02:01 +0100
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:48:25 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > Hmm. That documentation doesn't really help. What are the arguments that > are passed to onerror? Is it an "event" object as normal? I agree, I don't think there's anything useful that can be done with onerror to standardise it based on existing work, especially as it's rarely used, and pretty unreliable in any case. There's probably two things possible to do here: One is to invent what is basically a new onerror that is well specified (as a proper DOM event like normal ones) this would be relatively incompatible with legacy browsers (in that the object passed in etc. would be different - but IE6 doesn't have a good DOM events model anyway so I don't think this is a problem) This may be useful, but I'm not that sure how useful - onerror was never that good, better to develop the scripts so the errors you could recover from didn't happen in the first place (relying on onerror working wasn't a good strategy IMO) The next is to require ECMAScript Ed.3 (or potentially just the limited version for mobiles) this will give everyone try/catch abilities so you won't need to worry about onerror, this I certainly think would be sensible. Jim.
Received on Saturday, 28 August 2004 07:02:01 UTC