- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:20:41 +0200
- To: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:58:57 +0200, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org> wrote: > But according to bugs I've cited, see > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253150#c4 > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253150#c12 > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=154617 > > it was not, and by default we presume is not, web-compatible. > > Indeed Google codesearch discloses: > > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+%3D%3D+undefined%22&sbtn=Search > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+!%3D+undefined%22&sbtn=Search > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+%3D%3D+null%22&sbtn=Search > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=lang%3Ajavascript+%22.all+!%3D+null%22&sbtn=Search > > So I don't think what you describe, if that's all Opera does, is > sufficient, because false != null and false != undefined. I quickly skimmed through these and it seems most have something special for Opera, are part of a comment, or are part of the Gecko codebase, or something to that effect. Anyway, yeah, maybe we should be more like WebKit. Good reason to get this all defined :-) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 19:21:23 UTC