W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Possible compat problem with treating undefined as not passed in WebIDL

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 08:05:24 -0400
Message-ID: <524EAF04.5080604@mit.edu>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 10/4/13 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 10/3/13 2:25 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>> The developer feedback on the APIs I've worked on is very strong that
>>> passing undefined is expected to behave the same behavior as not passed
>> I agree.  I think this is a good idea in general; we just need to adjust the
>> XHR spec and keep an eye out for similar problems...
> So should I add [TreatUndefinedAs=false]?

For this specific one-off case, I'd rather we added the two overloads 
and a bit of prose instead of adding more [TreatUndefinedAs] complexity.

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 12:05:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC