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

Re: [whatwg] WebIDL and HTML5

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:49:38 -0400
Message-ID: <48B5CBF2.9010601@mit.edu>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

Garrett Smith wrote:
> 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.

So is everything else.  This particular desire has great benefits, 
however, so it needs to have great drawbacks as well to not be done, right?

> What I opposed is calling null a string. Null is not a string by the
> definition in the DOM 3 spec[1]

(You linked to the DOM2 spec, but DOM3 says the same thing.)

That definition does not necessarily preclude null being considered a 
DOMString, and in fact parts of the spec consider it so.  I'm honestly a 
little confused why you care so much about what something is "called" as 
opposed to what it "does".  The latter is what really matters.

> However, WebIDL does lump null into domstring.

Yes, because de-facto DOM does this already.

> What WebIDL does creates compatibility issues in an attempt to standardize bugs.

It doesn't create any issues that were not there.

> Moving forward, if null is allowed, it should not be called a string.

Moving forward doesn't help with the existing DOM interfaces, which 
certainly allow passing null for a DOMString.

> However, if only a DOMString is allowed, and null is passed, it should
> not require a one-off mapping.

Ideally, yes.  That's why there should be a default mapping, with 
one-offs flagged as needed (ideally rarely).

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 21:50:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT