W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

[Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:50:02 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1S4c2s-0006th-VN@jessica.w3.org>

Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |travil@microsoft.com

--- Comment #7 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> 2012-03-05 17:50:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Indeed. Furthermore, we want it for *all* onfoo attributes, not just the old
> ones.
> Please register my formal objection to this decision.

What is the basis for your objection? Do you think that having event handler
attributes translate any non-function value into null is the right behavior? Or
are you pushing for consistency with existing [legacy] behavior?

Apparently there are a large number of W3C specs out there that jumped on this
syntax right away, without understanding that the syntax was intended for
legacy APIs. Due to the copy/paste nature of spec authors, the current approach
is likely to fail in its goal (of being for legacy event handlers only). 

Perhaps a rename of the attribute is in order (similar to legacycaller)... or
we simply re-examine what we think is the acceptable behavior for *all* event
handlers, and reduce the friction by removing this attribute and creating a
bona-fide mechanism as has been suggested.

I'd be supportive of either of the above outcomes, but considering how the
[TreatNonCallableAsNull] extended attribute is being proliferated, "Won't Fix"
may not be appropriate.

Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 17:50:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:05 UTC