- From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:32:58 +0000
- To: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "annevk@opera.com" <annevk@opera.com>
Thanks for the feedback. I have acknowledged your response to the issue resolution (disagreement) in the Disposition of Comments. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/dc.html From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:45:09 -0700 To: "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org> Message-ID: <op.vzej5jn164w2qv@42-2-187-074.static.netvigator.com> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:59:34 -0700, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote: > Per the working group's discussion in the 5/5/2011 teleconference, we > have rejected this issue. We find it useful to have a unique exception > name for this case. The more descriptive name provides more context for > the error at hand; making debugging easier. Additionally, not > overloading INVALID_STATE_ERROR is preferable for SEO of specs and other > documentation to help understand the error. I do not think it makes sense to have EventException solely for this. Especially as INVALID_STATE_ERR matches the semantics perfectly fine. And if people want to find out why dispatchEvent fires an exception they can find out by searching for dispatchEvent. Given the way we have used exceptions throughout the web platform to date documentation would have to scope exceptions to methods anyway. We do not introduce new exceptions for one method generally. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 02:33:29 UTC