18289 2012-07-18 17:58:29 +0000 Support 'column' here for consistency with window.onerror? 2013-03-21 23:04:13 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG Web Workers (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#runtime-script-errors-0 P3 blocker --- 1 contributor ian art.barstow eoconnor erika.doyle ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-webapps zcorpan public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 71043 0 contributor 2012-07-18 17:58:29 +0000 This was was cloned from bug 17731 as part of operation convergence. Originally filed: 2012-07-10 11:40:00 +0000 ================================================================================ #0 contributor@whatwg.org 2012-07-10 11:40:19 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#runtime-script-errors-0 Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#runtime-script-errors-0 Comment: Support 'column' here for consistency with window.onerror? Posted from: 2001:4c28:a030:30:f5b8:b3bc:1bdc:22c2 by simonp@opera.com User agent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7.3; U; en) Presto/2.10.289 Version/12.00 ================================================================================ 72830 1 erika.doyle 2012-08-27 18:32:52 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: No change Rationale: The bug report applies to the WHATWG specification and not the HTML5 specification. 72838 2 eoconnor 2012-08-27 19:33:36 +0000 Erika, Web Workers exist in a spec published by the Web Applications WG-instead of resolving this as invalid, we should move it to the correct WebApps component for consideration by that WG. 72843 3 erika.doyle 2012-08-27 19:42:29 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Erika, > > Web Workers exist in a spec published by the Web Applications WG-instead of > resolving this as invalid, we should move it to the correct WebApps component > for consideration by that WG. Thank you Ted, that was an oversight on my part (sorry Ian!). I'm removing the "outOfScope" keyword I originally applied to this while it was in the HTML WG product. 73178 4 art.barstow 2012-09-04 13:54:55 +0000 What exactly is the bug here? Is the question whether column number should be included in the ErrorEvent interface and the ErrorEventInit dictionary? The prose in the spec indicates column number should be included in the API but there is no such member in the ErrorEvent interface nor the ErrorEventInit dictionary: [[ http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/#runtime-script-errors Whenever an uncaught runtime script error occurs in one of the worker's scripts, if the error did not occur while handling a previous script error, the user agent must report the error at the URL of the resource that contained the script, with the position (line number and column number) ... ]] FYI, the following test case assumes the ErrorEvent should have a "colno" member: http://w3c-test.org/webapps/Workers/tests/submissions/Microsoft/WorkerGlobalScope_ErrorEvent_colno.htm 73180 5 zcorpan 2012-09-04 14:44:41 +0000 Right. 74717 6 ian 2012-09-28 04:01:43 +0000 This was fixed as part of bug 17731. The attribute is "column", not "colno". No idea where Microsoft got that. That test is invalid. Who do I assign this to to fix the test? 80687 7 ian 2012-12-30 00:25:30 +0000 I've no idea who to reassign the bug to for the test. 84804 8 zcorpan 2013-03-21 23:04:13 +0000 The test is not invalid, it's just confusing. It's actually testing the 4th argument to 'onerror' in the worker.