W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [File API] File behavior under modification

From: Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:51:10 -0400
Cc: Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@google.com>, Jian Li <jianli@google.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Satoru Takabayashi <satorux@google.com>, Toni Barzic <tbarzic@google.com>
Message-Id: <FD06CD85-F55C-4AEE-A942-49F4BEAC70FE@mozilla.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:02 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:

>> 
> What's the main problem with it being nullable?  A fabricated date seems strange, but instead of being nullable we could spec what the fabricated date is.  I'm just not totally sure what the pros and cons are here.
> 
> If you call "d.getYear()" and d is null, you get an exception, which has a very high chance of breaking the app if it's not checked for.  Giving an arbitrary (but well-defined) default is much less likely to break things that badly.  This is much more important when the null case is rare, because nobody is going to remember to test for it.
>  
> Can you log a bug so that I can provide guidance for this in spec?
> 
> Sorry, but to avoid rereading the thread, a bug for what exactly?  Do you need anything beyond https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17746?

Bug 17746 is for better definitions of snapshots.

I minted Bug 17762 (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17762) to replace a nullable Date with something better.  Strawperson suggestions welcome for what this arbitrary date should be, or else I may arbitrarily choose an unlikely Towel Day in the past (http://towelday.org/ -- don't panic).

> 
-- A*
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 16:51:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:53 GMT