So are there no objections to this, should I draft a change to the spec?
-Dave
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Barrett-Kahn d...@google.com wrote:
Right now this event contains no structured information, just an error
message. It'd be helpful to us to know more about what failed, so
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, David Barrett-Kahn wrote:
So are there no objections to this, should I draft a change to the spec?
The process, insofar as we have one, is what is described here:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F
At some
Sounds reasonable to me. Webkit and chromium expose information like this
via the inspector console so users/developers at that can better diagnose
problems locally. Makes sense to also expose that info to app logic so
developers could diagnose from afar.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM, David
Right now this event contains no structured information, just an error
message. It'd be helpful to us to know more about what failed, so we can
know what to report to the server and take action on. It's hard to
distinguish cache update failures due to just being offline from those
which are
