- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:01:41 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:47:38 +0900, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Agreed. WebappsWG ran into similar "distributed number minting" with >> error types, and just gave up on numeric codes in favor of names. Old >> types still return the values they were previously defined with, but >> new errors just have a code of 0 and communicate their type solely >> through their name. > > Actually we decided strings would give a better API going forward. We never > really had a coordination problem for exception types. We used a wiki before > we decided to revamp the DOM specification. I remember differently, but whatever. Strings definitely are better than numeric constants, even without coordination problems. > We have a similar wiki page for CSSOM that people can use to register new > constants: > > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/cssom-constants > > Nobody has done so yet it seems. I had absolutely no idea that such a thing existed. This should be linked from the CSSRule section of CSSOM. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 01:02:29 UTC