- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:59:06 +1100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cameron McCormack: >> Which event listener attributes do we actually *need* it for currently? Marcos Caceres: > http://specs.wacapps.net/webview/#the-onclose-attribute > > (yes, I know it's not part of the Web Platform… a man's gotta pay his bills somehow :( ) Sorry, I meant which event listener attributes do we need the lenient behaviour for because of existing Web content that would break otherwise. >> Is it a set that might creep to become bigger? Consistency across all >> event listener attributes seems nice to me, but I admit it is trading >> off against hiding authoring errors. > > I can see what you mean. I guess my perspective is that I got used to > the [TreatNonCallableAsNull] behaviour over many years... so I kinda > see it's behaviour as a feature, not a bug. I find this surprising. You deliberately rely on the fact that assigning say a Node or a Number or a String to window.onblah does the same as assigning null to it? >> Regardless, I don't think we want to allow [TreatNonCallableAsNull] >> behaviour elsewhere. It's not consistent with how type conversion is >> done elsewhere. > > I know; but these "event handler IDL attributes" are kind of a > special case with a long legacy When I say "I don't think we want to allow [TreatNonCallableAsNull] behaviour elsewhere", I mean for things other than event handler attributes.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 23:59:44 UTC