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

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

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:44:35 -0700
Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <2F89C744-A5B8-4676-91A5-84FDABF30D3C@mozilla.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Jun 18, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:31:32 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
>> How does this problematic content cope with IE?
> 
> IE gets a different code path (usually following even less standards). Pretty normal for sites to rely on Gecko quirks and serve the same quirks to WebKit/Presto.

Could someone cite some examples on the web?

I'm prepared to believe they are Out There. We might have to cater to them with some quirks mode or other. But we need a survey to study the de-facto standard requirements.

BTW, I'm sympathetic to the idea that WebIDL, for historical or even just-so ahistorical reasons, might want a "nullable DOMString" type. This is not that JS-friendly, and JS matters a lot more than Java, C#, etc. But it still could be that WebIDL and users, even users of the JS APIs, want null -> "" (a falsy value).

So ignoring compatibility constraints, and ignoring the separate falsy-might-be-better argument, I'd prefer "ECMAScript ToString" semantics.

But we can't ignore those two issues, I agree. We need to study some JS on the web that cares.

/be
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 20:45:15 UTC

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