W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: typeof document.all

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:20:41 +0200
To: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.org>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u1q6orqa64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:58:57 +0200, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>  
wrote:
> But according to bugs I've cited, see
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253150#c4
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253150#c12
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=154617
>
> it was not, and by default we presume is not, web-compatible.
>
> Indeed Google codesearch discloses:
>
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+%3D%3D+undefined%22&sbtn=Search
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+!%3D+undefined%22&sbtn=Search
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+%3D%3D+null%22&sbtn=Search
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+!%3D+null%22&sbtn=Search
>
> So I don't think what you describe, if that's all Opera does, is  
> sufficient, because false != null and false != undefined.

I quickly skimmed through these and it seems most have something special  
for Opera, are part of a comment, or are part of the Gecko codebase, or  
something to that effect.

Anyway, yeah, maybe we should be more like WebKit. Good reason to get this  
all defined :-)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 19:21:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC