W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: IndexedDB: undefined parameters

From: Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:53:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD649j4DktL1vm_-vyzQ6+x4aYtKPASJStz9wcBcM+soLsKBDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Alec Flett <alecflett@chromium.org>, Robert Ginda <rginda@chromium.org>
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Ginda <rginda@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 10/9/12 6:04 PM, Robert Ginda wrote:
>>> I'd suggest also treating null as missing if possible.
>> In general, or for the specific IDB case?
> Well my own personal opinion would be in general, but I don't know what
> kind of repercussions that would have on other specifications and
> implementations.

The existence of an extended attribute in WebIDL to change the behavior in
this case hints at the need for both binding behaviors for compatibility
with the web. I note that there's no corresponding TreatNullAs=Missing,
however. Perhaps Cameron can jump in with any details he remembers?

We've definitely had feedback from developers that expect foo(undefined) to
behave the same as foo() for IndexedDB (and are surprised when they get
e.g. foo("undefined") instead) so I'm in favor of adding
[TreatUndefinedAs=Missing] where it makes sense in IndexedDB.
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 23:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:49 UTC