- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:15:46 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cameron McCormack wrote: > Boris Zbarsky: >> I thought there had been at least some mention of this colliding with >> existing string types in IDLs that are already in use? I know this will >> make it much harder for Mozilla to use webidl IDL fragments "as is"... > > Yes, but then Jonas replied saying that Mozilla wasn’t intending on > using them as is. But if you are, … I don't know that we've made any decisions along these lines... > I can easily rename the type back to DOMString. I’d like to know if you > all think there is any problem in keeping the name as DOMString but > removing the null from its set of values, and requiring the use of the > nullable type ‘DOMString?’ to specify a string type that does allow > null. Because then it is different from the traditional DOMString as > defined in DOM Core. Are we going to rewrite the existing DOM spec idl to the new syntax as needed (e.g getElementsByTagNameNS)? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 02:16:33 UTC