To follow up on this thread, this issue should be resolved in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98215. Please let me know if further improvements are needed.
Adam On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we >>> fail fast and hard >> >> In some cases, yes. It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously. >> >> A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing >> something, silently implementing something else seems strictly worse than >> raising a spec issue (and still implementing something else if desired). > > I didn't knowingly diverge from the spec. I didn't notice the strict > error checking when writing the patch. > >> Especially for things that you're planning to implement unprefixed. > > We implemented this feature without a prefix at Ian's specific request. > >> Likewise for cases when the spec is unclear, etc. What's the point of >> having implementations early in the specification process if they don't >> actually provide feedback and instead only serve to lock in behaviors? > > I think you're being a big aggressive. In any case, I didn't have any > ill intent. I just misunderstood because it never occurred to me that > we'd want to fail hard on this sort of error. > > Adam >
