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: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:42:27 +0000
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F695AF7AA77CC745A271AD0F61BBC61E3D147582@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 2:44 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Israel Hilerio:
> > Are we saying that we should remove the "TreatNullAs=EmptyString" and
> > keep the parameter restriction that "version" cannot be nullable?
> 
> The [TreatNullAs=EmptyString] behaviour is now the default, so you
> definitely want to remove it.  When you say “keep the parameter restriction
> that "version" cannot be nullable” do you mean keep the type as
> “DOMString”?  If so, then that seems like the right thing to do.
> Only make it “DOMString?” if you want to distinguish between null being
> passed and "" being passed.
> 
> --
> Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/


What I meant was that on the method description of IDBDatabase.setVersion, there is a table that has a nullable column.  In it the "version" parameter there is an "x" in the Nullable column, which implies that the "version" parameter cannot be nullable.  I'm guessing we want to keep this setting and that the only thing we want to remove is the "[TreatNullAs=EmptyString]" from the WebIDL definition (as you described above) of the setVersion.

I don't see any reason for changing the type of the parameter from DOMString.

Israel
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 00:42:59 GMT

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