- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:55:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Steffen Krüssel <steffen.kruessel@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 22:56:34 UTC
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Steffen Krüssel wrote: > > If I understand you right, it should be enough to put a descriptive text > on the appropriate method in order to indicate what the actual > requirements for an implementation are (e.g. default value if left out)? > > But then most of the implementation-relevant requirements could be put > into the interface's documentation rather than specified formally. For > example, [TreatNullAs] could also be documented informal, can't it? So > if I didn't get anything wrong, the question is which directives are > specified (in)formal?! Yes, [TreatNullAs] could also be handled this way. In fact, that's how I generally handle that particular case. We could add syntax for default values also, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was just trying to clarify the earlier e-mail. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 22:56:34 UTC