On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Robin Berjon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jonas, > > On Mar 22, 2012, at 03:41 , Jonas Sicking wrote: >> It appears that something has changed in respec which causes IndexedDB >> to no longer show the "Exceptions" section for all functions and >> attributes. IndexedDB relies on the text in the Exceptions section to >> define a lot of normative requirements which means that the spec >> currently is very ambiguous in many areas. >> >> Robin, was this an intentional change in respec? Is there an old >> version of the script anywhere that we can link to? > > Yes, this was announced to spec-prod (but presumably not everyone reads > that...): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2012JanMar/0018.html > > The problem is basically that "raises" is no longer in WebIDL so I had to > eventually pull it too lest I generate invalid WebIDL. > > There isn't an old version but since this is CVS presumably there's some kind > of arcane syntax that makes it possible to get it. Perhaps more usefully, I'd > be happy to figure out a way to still express that information but without > ties to deprecated WebIDL constructs (preferably requiring minimal spec > changes). > > Sorry about that, I was hoping that people would either a) have moved on from > old WebIDL syntax, b) see the announcement on spec-prod, or c) notice the > change and scream immediately. Suggestions for a better protocol to handle > this sort of change (it's the first of its kind, but possibly not the last) > are much welcome.
Simply displaying a table of exceptions after the parameters list seems like it would be WebIDL compatible. I.e. we wouldn't need the 'raises' syntax inside the IDL itself, but having a separate description of the various exceptions thrown by a function seems like it could be useful. Possibly have less focus on the Exception interface-type since it's almost always going to be DOMException. / Jonas
