Bug 16496 - Confusing statement
Summary: Confusing statement
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: WebIDL (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Cameron McCormack
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-23 17:05 UTC by Marcos Caceres
Modified: 2012-03-24 00:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcos Caceres 2012-03-23 17:05:18 UTC
I am having trouble parsing this:
"For each constant defined on the exception, there must be a corresponding property on the exception interface object, if it exists, if the identifier of the constant is not “prototype”. "

Can you please rephrase.
Comment 1 Cameron McCormack 2012-03-24 00:52:48 UTC
Yes that is confusingly worded.  What I mean to say is that if there is an exception interface object (because sometimes there isn't, due to [NoInterfaceObject]) then it will have a property for each constant as long as the property name is not "prototype".

I forgot though that I've already forbidden any IDL definitions from having the name "prototype", so I can drop that conditional.

I've reworded it by talking about the exception interface prototype object first.