W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [whatwg] WebIDL and HTML5

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:44:08 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660808271444p2d2f94fdmf5568d53c1337160@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> Given that, I suggest moving forward:
>>  Test, then document those methods as having special behavior. Do
>> this not by a null->value mapping, but by documenting the method's
>> algorithm in simple terms. e.g. "if X is not a string, throw an error"
> But giving a (per-method) mapping means that the algorithm can then be
> machine-generated from the IDL, which is an interoperability win: less
> chance of a mistake being made.
> So why are you opposed to having such per-method mappings, as needed?

I can appreciate the desire to make the task of implementing the spec
in an automated fashion. That is a desire, however, not a need.

What I opposed is calling null a string. Null is not a string by the
definition in the DOM 3 spec[1]. A String variable, in Java, can have
the value null, but this can be determined: if(s == null). However,
WebIDL does lump null into domstring. What WebIDL does creates
compatibility issues in an attempt to standardize bugs.

Moving forward, if null is allowed, it should not be called a string.
However, if only a DOMString is allowed, and null is passed, it should
not require a one-off mapping.


[1] DOM3 domstring
[2] WebIDL domstring

> -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 21:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC