W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

RE: [indexeddb] IDBDatabase.setVersion non-nullable parameter has a default for null

From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:30:09 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F695AF7AA77CC745A271AD0F61BBC61E3D146C10@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:13 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Actually, WebIDL just changed from turning null into "null" to turning null
> into "". Turns out that a bunch of functions depended on that behavior and
> so it seems like that's what we'll be stuck with.
> 
> In any case, I think IndexedDB should be silent on the issue and simply rely
> on WebIDL defaults. That should give the most consistent behavior to most
> other DOM functions.
> 
> / Jonas
> 
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > We should probably just remove the special case.  I believe WebIDL
> > specifies that a null would then turn into the string "null".  This is
> > what we've done pretty much everywhere else I believe.
> > J
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The parameter of IDBDatabase.setVersion is defined in the WebIDL as
> >> [TreatNullAs=EmptyString] but in the method definition it says that
> >> the parameter cannot be nullable.  Do we want to enable null values?
> >>
> >> Israel
> >>
> >
> >

Are we saying that we should remove the "TreatNullAs=EmptyString" and keep the parameter restriction that "version" cannot be nullable?

Israel
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:30:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT