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, 29 Nov 2008 13:35:49 +1100
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081129023549.GG16515@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 don’t mind it being repeated.  My problem is more of talking about
undefined, which is an ECMAScript value, in the same context as null,
which here (presumably) is being used to refer to the IDL value.  There
is no IDL value undefined.  I would be happy if the start of that
sentence were changed to:

  If the selectors parameter is set to null (or undefined, in the
  ECMAScript language binding), …

Thanks,

Cameron

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 29 November 2008 02:36:27 GMT

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