On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Replying late here, but:
>
> On 29/09/11 12:03 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> From my understanding of the WebIDL spec, the idea is that
>> specifications like IndexedDB should throw exceptions which use the
>> DOMExceptions interface. Th
Replying late here, but:
On 29/09/11 12:03 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
From my understanding of the WebIDL spec, the idea is that
specifications like IndexedDB should throw exceptions which use the
DOMExceptions interface. The various errors would use different string
values for .name which would r
On 10/6/11 12:16 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Monday, October 3, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
(generally speaking...)
Seems there is a lot of confusion about how to do this properly (and I'm seeing
that this is going to now be an issue amongst a number of groups, including
t
On Monday, October 3, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> > (generally speaking...)
> > Seems there is a lot of confusion about how to do this properly (and I'm
> > seeing that this is going to now be an issue amongst a number of groups,
> > including this group, DAP, and even other or
On 10/2/11 7:38 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Saturday, 1 October 2011 at 08:15, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 02:56:55 +0200, Israel Hileriomailto:isra...@microsoft.com)>
wrote:
On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Actually, given
http://dvcs.w3.or
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>
> We believe it is simpler and closer to the intent on the WebIDL spec to
> say: Throws a DOMException of type " VersionError".
>
> Instead of having to explain what it means to throw a type as an
> exception: To throw a “VersionError” exception, a us
On Saturday, 1 October 2011 at 08:15, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 02:56:55 +0200, Israel Hilerio (mailto:isra...@microsoft.com)>
> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > > Actually, given
> > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 02:56:55 +0200, Israel Hilerio
wrote:
On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
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.
On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:54:50 +0200, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > Microsoft believes that the following text closer reflects the intent
> > on the WebIDL spec:
> > * Throws a DOMException of type " VersionError".
> > (vs. Throw a Ver
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:54:50 +0200, Israel Hilerio
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 th
On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:40:29 +0200, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > Like Cameron says in the link above and based on the WebIDL
> > description, it seems we want the IndexedDB text to say, for example:
> > Throws a DOMException of type
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2011 2:36 AM Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
>> > wrote:
>> >> This is our understanding on how
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:40:29 +0200, Israel Hilerio
wrote:
Like Cameron says in the link above and based on the WebIDL description,
it seems we want the IndexedDB text to say, for example:
Throws a DOMException of type " VersionError". (vs. Throw a VersionError
exception)
He made a suggesti
On Monday, September 26, 2011 2:36 AM Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
> > wrote:
> >> This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support
> >> the new WebIDL excepti
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
wrote:
This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support
the new WebIDL exception handling model. We would start by removing
all of the constants from IDBDat
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
wrote:
This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support the
new WebIDL exception handling model. We would start by removing all of
the constants from IDBDatabaseException. After that, the only thing
left would be mess
Jonas,
This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support the new
WebIDL exception handling model. We would start by removing all of the
constants from IDBDatabaseException. After that, the only thing left would be
message. Do we still need to have this class definition? I
17 matches
Mail list logo
