[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] DOM Exceptions -- unfinished item
Hi Lofton, I think we can remove the exceptions that are unused (DOM doesn't use them either but they've kept them in anyway). I'm fine with keeping WEBCGMSTRING_SIZE_ERR, it's probably a good one. If my memory is not failing me, we agreed to no exception on style/attribute APS, but instead to add wording that out-of-range values would be clipped. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Monday, October 10, 2005, 7:46:23 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> All -- LH> Here is a loose end that didn't get entirely reflected in the CD2 text -- LH> DOM exceptions. LH> 1.) Stuart did a study, and Benoit commented on it [1]: LH> [1] LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200508/msg00074.html LH> 2.) Early September, with CD2 drop-dead looming, I asked Benoit for final LH> editing directives. He sent a message, I compared to current Editors draft LH> spec and found differences. We sorted out some of the differences, but not all. LH> 3.) Attached HTML table is the current status, CD2 text versus LH> Benoit/Stuart recommendations. Notes: LH> * 3 defined exceptions are unused; LH> * no BB/SG position on the single WEBCGMSTRING_SIZE_ERR; LH> * apparent consensus on removal of LH> NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR from LH> WebCGMNode.setAttributeNS() LH> 4.) Did we have a consensus, discussing [1] in telecon, that we would *not* LH> define new exceptions for the methods that set SPs and AAs, if either the LH> style/attribute did not exist, or if the value was invalid/out-of-range? LH> Regards, LH> -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]