W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [dom3core] getAttribute

From: Kasimier Buchcik <K.Buchcik@4commerce.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:37:09 +0100
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: ML-www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1133516229.1272.9.camel@librax>


On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 23:16 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Ray Whitmer wrote:
> >
> > Can you tell me how many implementers of the standard would be made  
> > retroactively incompatible by this sort of change to an intentional  
> > part of DOM Level 1? I am not talking the major vendors current  
> > implementations, but other and prior implementatiions? Please  
> > enumerate those which will not be broken and let's see how many you  
> > leave out. It is perhaps not as relevant to me as you would like it  
> > to be that you personally do not care about these other  
> > implementations which followed the standard. I have know list but  
> > know of enough.
> Making either empty string or null an acceptable return value in this  
> case will break 0 implementations. Can you name any that would be  

How did you evaluate that it breaks 0 implementations?

> broken by making both behaviors conforming? I can't imagine how this  
> is possible.

Yesterday I already posted a description of such a scenario.

In case you missed it:

If we have (e.getAttribute('foo') != "") then this will evaluate to
true if:
 1) there is an attribute node and its value is other than ""

The change you request, would evaluate this to true if:
 1) there is _no_ such attribute node (NULL != "")
 2) there is such attribute node and its value is other than ""

So every existing code which tests if an attribute node's value is
non-empty, will break.


Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 09:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:12 UTC