W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors Last Call

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:56:56 +1100
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081101075655.GA26106@arc.mcc.id.au>

Cameron McCormack:
> > * In section 6, I don’t think it’s necessary to explicitly mention
> >   undefined, since it’s already handled by the annotation in the IDL.
> >   If you do want to include this in the prose, I think it needs to be
> >   qualified to say that this applies to an ECMAScript language binding
> >   of the interface.  (null’s OK, since you can talk about null at the
> >   level of IDL values so it’s applicable to any language.)

Lachlan Hunt:
> I don't see why this is a problem.  Technically both null and undefined  
> are handled by the IDL, but stating it implicitly in the prose makes it  
> clearer.   I haven't made this change yet, because I want to avoid  
> making non-editorial changes at this stage. But feel free to convince me  
> during this next LC period.

OK, will do. :)

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 07:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT