- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:03:02 -0400
- To: Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
On 10/3/13 2:25 PM, Joshua Bell wrote: > Having an optional boolean argument default to "true" seems like poor JS > API design for this reason. Agreed. > Hopefully there isn't much of it in the > platform, and therefore overloads and/or prose is acceptable in legacy > cases. Are you aware of other examples? Not yet. This was the only one that failed our automated tests in an obviously-undesirable way. The other failures were all in passing undefined as the title to createHTMLDocument, which I expect is not likely to happen in the wild. But as you say, this may have more to do with test coverage than anything else. > The developer feedback on the APIs I've worked on is very strong that > passing undefined is expected to behave the same behavior as not passed I agree. I think this is a good idea in general; we just need to adjust the XHR spec and keep an eye out for similar problems... -Boris
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 21:03:30 UTC