W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:22:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78gd1QmGjneHf9u12_F3qjVq7H8AFdxafd+sZ-tuSeTtzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> Well, it happens to be a lot easier to implement at least for me if we allow
> those, because then dictionary members act exactly like optional method
> arguments...

I guess having these supported as part of the browser engine does not
matter much. It's mostly new specifications we care about. As long as
those don't use it, browsers won't have it either (even though it
would theoretically work). Maybe Web IDL should have some kind of
implementor/spec-writer split as far as conformance goes.


-- 
Anne — Opera Software
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 14:22:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:06 UTC