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

Re: [WebIDL] Worry on Enum type - binding seems inconsistently defined

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:17:15 +0100
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v83tu1g664w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:50:03 +0100, Harald Alvestrand  
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> Anne, are you on this list? (don't know if my posting makes this list,  
> since it's another list I'm likely not a member of).
>
> Does "ignored" in this case mean that the attribute retains its previous  
> value? This seems to me to be likely to lead to hard-to-debug errors, or  
> "set-and-test" type programming - but I'm not an experienced DOM  
> programmer...

Yes, it retains its previous value. That's a commonly used model on the  
web. E.g.

   background:lime
   background:url(1), url(2)

or

   canvasContext.fillStyle = "red"
   canvasContext.fillStyle = someObj

If you want to do feature checking it's quite nice too as you do not have  
to use exception handling

   xhr.responseType = "document"
   if(xhr.responseType == "document") { ... }


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 13:18:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC