W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: in webIDL can a required dictionary member be nullable?

From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0700
Message-ID: <55AA95A0.6080802@KingsMountain.com>
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
TJ replied..
 > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:49 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> 
wrote:
 >> Hi folks, I have a quick hopefully easy question I just need to
 >> double-check on..
 >>
 >> in webIDL 2nd Ed. [1] can a required dictionary member be nullable?
 >>
 >> e.g.  can one do this..
 >>
 >>   dictionary foo {
 >>     required DOMString? bar;
 >>     required DOMString? baz;
 >>   };
 >>
 >> ..?
 >>
 >> From my reading of [1], especially at [2], the answer is "yes" for the
 >> case of such a dictionary, correct?
 >
 > Absolutely. null is a value.


Ok, thanks much, now another question..

if we declare this non-nullable variant in a spec..

    dictionary foo-EmptyStringOK {
      required DOMString bar;
      required DOMString baz;
    };

..where the above is intended to describe a JSON-serialized on-the-wire 
message, is it legitimate to have actual message instances where the value 
of bar or baz are empty strings, eg "" ?   e.g.,

   {"bar":"","baz":""}

..?

my understanding is that a serialization of {"bar":null,"baz":null} would 
NOT be ok in the case of foo-EmptyStringOK, but would be ok in the case of 
the foo dictionary way up above because the DOMString members therein are 
declared as nullable.

am I missing anything?

thanks again,

=JeffH
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2015 18:07:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 18 July 2015 18:07:07 UTC