Re: [Bug 12798] Default to [TreatNullAs=EmptyString]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM, <> wrote:

> --- Comment #20 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <>
> 2011-06-18 19:17:59 UTC ---
> >> "I *think* and there is quite some content out there that relies on
> this too"
> >> "I *believe* WebKit has had similar experience."
> Anne, can you provide some examples that motivated the change in Opera?
> As I sighted before, the IE behavior defatul is null->"null", so I'm
> wondering
> what sites are broken in IE due to this behavior (and not some other
> side-effect)?
> In addition to the compatibility argument, there's also the argument around
> consistency _with ECMAScript_ default behavior. We should be very careful
> about
> changing to a default that is inconsistent with ECMAScript null
> converstions in
> [[ToString]]. Now, if ECMAScript is willing to change their defaults, then
> I
> think we may have something to discuss.

EcmaScript cannot and will not change these defaults.

+1 to WebIDL defaults being changed to match EcmaScript. I think this is

The fact that IE already seems to do have EcmaScript-like behavior seems to
demonstrate that the cross browser web would not be broken by switching
WebIDL to match EcmaScript. Anne, I am also curious about what problems you
encountered, and whether we would expect these problems would still be
present. How does this problematic content cope with IE?

> >> Now if Gecko is changed and they can ship with that change null ->
> "null" might be the right thing to do, but otherwise the more sensible
> default is null -> "". Both for existing methods and attribute setters and
> for future ones, so we have at least some consistency.
> Indeed I am arguing for consistency, but consistency between the DOM and
> ECMAScript. This is one of my goals for the WebIDL binding.
> --
> Configure bugmail:
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.


Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 19:31:57 UTC