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

RE: [WEBIDL] nullable dictionary members

From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:41:26 +0900
To: 'Boris Zbarsky' <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-id: <008901cd7c75$9df290f0$d9d7b2d0$%song@samsung.com>
Thanks for the comment, Boris!

Jungkee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:26 PM
> To: public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [WEBIDL] nullable dictionary members
> 
> On 8/15/12 10:05 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
> > Having said that dictionary members are inherently optional by
> definition,
> > is it meaningful (and valid) to mark optional fields as nullable?
> 
> Seems like it should be to me, yes.
> 
> > dicationary Foo {
> >      DOMString iWantToBeRequired = "Default";
> >      DOMString? iWantToBeNullable;
> >      DOMString iAmAlreadyOptional;
> > };
> >
> > Do the two dictionary members "iWantToBeNullable" and
> "iAmAlreadyOptional"
> > semantically make any difference?
> 
> Yes.  The latter can either be unset or set to a string.  The former can
> be unset, set to a string, or set to null.  Those are different things.
> 
> > I was thinking spec writers sometimes encounter situations where they
> would
> > like to explicitly describe certain dictionary members are required
> while
> > others are not.
> 
> Dictionaries can't have a required member via IDL, unless the member has
> a default value....
> 
> Of course the prose can always call for throwing if a member is not set.
> 
> -Boris
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 12:41:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT