📗 API Reference Docs Problem
- Platform: Linux 5.10.47-linuxkit x86_64 GNU/Linux
Location
Section of the site where the content exists
Affected URL(s):
Description
Concise explanation of the problem
DOMException, which was made globally available in v17.0.0, is not amongst the runtime errors listed in our “Errors” API reference docs.
It is, however, correctly listed on the “Globals” page.
By referencing the original (“Globals”) location from a brand new section dedicated to DOMException on our “Errors” page, I am thinking that we may be able to have it listed on both pages similar to how we list AssertionError on both /api/errors.html and /api/assert.html. Thoughts?
P.S. Unsure of how relevant this may be (perhaps wrt the potential misclassification of AbortError raised in #40692), but this seems worth mentioning in this issue…
Along w/ structuredClone (spec link) — which was also made globally available in v17.0.0 — we appear to have added our first (?) couple of objects to be classified as “platform objects” according to Web IDL (at least that’s mine and @domenic’s current interpret of the spec, anyway). Perhaps it may be worth explicitly identifying them as such in our documentation?
Any additional information/suggestions would be appreciated. It seems like it could simply be a minor oversight unless I am mistaken.
/cc @aduh95 @targos @Trott @BridgeAR @addaleax @mcollina @benjamingr @jasnell (et al. who may have more context)
📗 API Reference Docs Problem
errorsLocation
Section of the site where the content exists
Affected URL(s):
Description
Concise explanation of the problem
DOMException, which was made globally available in v17.0.0, is not amongst the runtime errors listed in our “Errors” API reference docs.It is, however, correctly listed on the “Globals” page.
By referencing the original (“Globals”) location from a brand new section dedicated to
DOMExceptionon our “Errors” page, I am thinking that we may be able to have it listed on both pages similar to how we listAssertionErroron both/api/errors.htmland/api/assert.html. Thoughts?P.S. Unsure of how relevant this may be (perhaps wrt the potential misclassification of
AbortErrorraised in #40692), but this seems worth mentioning in this issue…Along w/
structuredClone(spec link) — which was also made globally available in v17.0.0 — we appear to have added our first (?) couple of objects to be classified as “platform objects” according to Web IDL (at least that’s mine and @domenic’s current interpret of the spec, anyway). Perhaps it may be worth explicitly identifying them as such in our documentation?Any additional information/suggestions would be appreciated. It seems like it could simply be a minor oversight unless I am mistaken.
/cc @aduh95 @targos @Trott @BridgeAR @addaleax @mcollina @benjamingr @jasnell (et al. who may have more context)
submit a pull request.