On Monday, October 03, 2011 7:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> For several of these I think we can reuse existing DOMExceptions.
> >> Here's how I'd map the exceptions which
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> IDBDatabase(Sync).createObjectStore if the options argument is handed
> an object with properties other than those in the dictionary.
> This doesn't actually match how dictionaries are supposed to behave
> per WebIDL. They are defined to igno
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> For several of these I think we can reuse existing DOMExceptions.
>> Here's how I'd map the exceptions which are currently in the IndexedDB
>> spec:
>>
>> UNKNOWN_ERR
>> Mint a
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > NON_TRANSIENT_ERR
>> > I think in many cases we should simply throw a TypeError here. That
>> > seems
>> > to matc
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > NON_TRANSIENT_ERR
> > I think in many cases we should simply throw a TypeError here. That seems
> > to match closely to how TypeError is used by WebIDL now.
>
> As I'm mapping
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> For several of these I think we can reuse existing DOMExceptions.
> Here's how I'd map the exceptions which are currently in the IndexedDB
> spec:
>
> UNKNOWN_ERR
> Mint a new UnknownError. Alternatively we could simply throw an
> EC
