- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:45:55 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> Well, DOM defines DOMException at the moment so it would be *the* >> specification to check for usage. >> >> And in particular what I pointed you to is exactly what you want to do >> here. Reject with a DOMException object whose name is x, message is >> some user agent-defined value, and code is set per the table. > > That's what I want to do, yes, but not what I want to type. Can we > add a prose hook somewhere that defines "reject with a FooError > exception" as the above? You mention WebIDL maybe doing this, but I'd > think it appropriate for DOM to do it too. I could update DOM, but I don't see why we wouldn't wait a few months for the proper fix. At that point everyone will have to update their text anyway as I'll have removed the relevant bits. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 09:46:23 UTC