W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [selectors-api] Stringifying undefined

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:46:41 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0902181046y1ac6807eg9c93554617258e7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:05:42 +0100, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
> wrote:
>>
>> [...] We have a number of options:
>>
>> 1. null -> "null", undefined -> "undefined"
>> 2. null -> "", undefined -> "undefined"
>> 3. null -> "", undefined -> "" (current spec requirement)
>>
>> Option #1 is the ECMAScript default, and the default defined by WebIDL.
>>  This is currently implemented by IE8.
>>
>> Option #2 is currently implemented by Mozilla.
>>
>> Option #3 is currently implemented by Opera and WebKit.
>
> So ideally what we do here is simply in line with how we plan to make all
> APIs that accept strings work (with exceptions).

Yup, that's exactly what I've been arguing (both for this and for
other APIs). I think we should not have [Null=...] or [Undefined=...]
in there at all for now. Instead put some wording in that says that
we're doing whatever the default is for WebIDL, but that that isn't
fully locked down as of yet (since the spec is still a WD).

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 18:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT