W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [Bug 12798] Default to [TreatNullAs=EmptyString]

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:31:32 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinSyY7=8hTr7JjCun4EYNKJKCXhgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12798
>
> --- Comment #20 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com>
> 2011-06-18 19:17:59 UTC ---
> >> "I *think* and there is quite some content out there that relies on
> this too"
>
> >> "I *believe* WebKit has had similar experience."
>
> Anne, can you provide some examples that motivated the change in Opera?
>
> As I sighted before, the IE behavior defatul is null->"null", so I'm
> wondering
> what sites are broken in IE due to this behavior (and not some other
> side-effect)?
>
> In addition to the compatibility argument, there's also the argument around
> consistency _with ECMAScript_ default behavior. We should be very careful
> about
> changing to a default that is inconsistent with ECMAScript null
> converstions in
> [[ToString]]. Now, if ECMAScript is willing to change their defaults, then
> I
> think we may have something to discuss.
>

EcmaScript cannot and will not change these defaults.

+1 to WebIDL defaults being changed to match EcmaScript. I think this is
important.

The fact that IE already seems to do have EcmaScript-like behavior seems to
demonstrate that the cross browser web would not be broken by switching
WebIDL to match EcmaScript. Anne, I am also curious about what problems you
encountered, and whether we would expect these problems would still be
present. How does this problematic content cope with IE?


>
>
> >> Now if Gecko is changed and they can ship with that change null ->
> "null" might be the right thing to do, but otherwise the more sensible
> default is null -> "". Both for existing methods and attribute setters and
> for future ones, so we have at least some consistency.
>
> Indeed I am arguing for consistency, but consistency between the DOM and
> ECMAScript. This is one of my goals for the WebIDL binding.
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 19:31:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:03 UTC