On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:54:50 +0200, Israel Hilerio <isra...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
Microsoft believes that the following text closer reflects the intent on
the WebIDL spec:
* Throws a DOMException of type " VersionError".
(vs. Throw a VersionError exception, which doesn’t accurately capture
the intent defined in the WebIDL spec)
Actually, given
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#concept-throw it
does. Which is what I was trying to convey. HTML does this too now:
http://html5.org/r/6602
As we mentioned before, we agree on the reuse of existing DOM level 4
Exceptions currently contained in the spec. However, it is our stance
that feature specific exceptions should be defined in the spec that they
are used in. With the new WebIDL model, it’s not necessary to “define”
the exceptions anywhere. Anyone can just state in their spec: "Throw a
DOMException of type FooBar" and that’s it.
Yes, but how do you prevent e.g. WrongVersionError from appearing next to
VersionError if there is no central lookup? Do you expect people that mint
new exceptions to look at all specifications that use exceptions? The
exceptions defined in DOM4 are already not specific to DOM4, e.g.
NetworkError is mostly for XMLHttpRequest at this point, as is
TimeoutError.
This is the pattern we're looking to follow for IndexedDB.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
