[whatwg] [editing] queryCommand(Indeterm|State|Value) for commands where they make no sense
rniwa at webkit.org
Fri Sep 16 13:15:08 PDT 2011
I have a fear for start throwing exceptions at places where we didn't used
to because that'll end up stopping the script. I guess we can start logging
some console message first but given the market share of IE and WebKit and
how they're both used in native frameworks (.net / WebKit), I'm not
convinced this is the best option from compatibility perspective.
Regardless, it appears to me that we need more usage data we before we make
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 11-09-15 4:39 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> I think the exception-throwing behavior is preferable in principle,
>> but for compat, I suspect the right behavior is to always return
>> boolean false for state and indeterm, and "" for value. This
>> basically matches everyone but Gecko for commands where none of them
>> make sense, and matches Gecko/Opera for the value of commands where
>> only state makes sense. Throwing doesn't match anyone except Gecko,
>> and then only in some cases. If others agree, I'll change the spec
>> and tests accordingly.
> With my Gecko hat off (honesly, without having investigated, I think the
> reason that Gecko throws in some of these cases are just bugs!), I hate APIs
> which return dummy values and hide the authors mistake in that way. I think
> now's our chance to improve things here.
> But I do agree that web-compat is something which we need to address here.
> However, I think that's going to be a general risk with the new spec.
> There are things which don't have a clear-cut answer, where existing
> implementations do things differently, and nobody knows why. For those
> cases, the web-compat concern is really tricky to address. But there are
> cases where implementations are doing something which doesn't make sense at
> all in response to the author doing something which doesn't make sense at
> all. No matter what the implementation does, the content script is doing
> something wrong. I find the position of refusing such invalid requests very
> defendable, and I would be quite willing to change Gecko's behavior like
> that in the near future.
> Speaking pragmatically, I've never seen a bug report in Mozilla where
> somebody asks why does Gecko do this when I do this thing which doesn't make
> sense in the first place. So my educated guess is that this is not going to
> break a lot of existing websites anyway.
More information about the whatwg