21648 2013-04-10 05:53:43 +0000 [HTML] editorial: 4.11.7 + 7.5.1.3: non-code DOMException names 2013-04-24 00:37:59 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified All All CLOSED FIXED P2 trivial Unsorted 1 jmdyck ian ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 85840 0 jmdyck 2013-04-10 05:53:43 +0000 Normally, the spec presents DOMException names (e.g. "throw a FooError exception") in a <code> font. Here's 4 places where it doesn't: 4.11.7 "The dialog element" showModal(), steps 2 + 3 close(), step 1 7.5.1.3 "Custom scheme and content handlers" last algorithm, step 4. (I think those are the only ones.) 85908 1 ian 2013-04-10 22:46:18 +0000 Thanks! (For future reference, it's easiest for me to find things if you include text from the actual spec where the error occurs. The section numbers and step numbers don't appear in the source file, and the section titles tend not to be unique enough amongst the source as a whole. Though in this case I just searched for "throw an? <span", which hit all of them.) 85925 2 jmdyck 2013-04-11 03:35:38 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > > (For future reference, it's easiest for me to find things if you include > text from the actual spec where the error occurs. Okay. Mostly I copy-and-paste text from a browser window, so there's no markup. Is that a problem, or can you do searches that ignore/skip markup (and whitespace variations) in the source? > The section numbers and step numbers don't appear in the source file, The doc at http://www.whatwg.org/c has section numbers in the source, so the source you edit must be upstream from that. Is http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps/source the true source? I wonder if it would be any better for me to work from that. 86648 3 ian 2013-04-24 00:20:12 +0000 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/source is what I work from. Then there's a byzantine convoluted bunch of scripts and remote services that are duck-taped together which turn that file plus a bunch of support materials into the index file that is finally published. Copy-and-pasting without markup is fine, I can figure it out. Please review the final file rather than the source file, since what matters is what people end up reading, not what I write. (Reading the source you'll miss things like broken cross-references, for example. Or errors in the aforementioned rube-goldberg machine. Or at least, I do.) Thanks a ton for reviewing the spec, by the way, it's much appreciated. Also, note that I often miss comments added to bugs that are not open (depends on how carefully I'm reading the bug mail — I get a lot). 86650 4 jmdyck 2013-04-24 00:37:59 +0000 Thanks!