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

[Bug 23532] Dealing with undefined

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:33:55 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23532-3890-4XWKoDPFYJ@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #20 from Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> ---
> Clearly at least Domenic disagrees...  but yes, that would be the sane approach to API design.

I'm sorry if I've given any impression to the contrary. I thought we were
discussing WebIDL rules, not what specific APIs should do. Specific APIs are
constrained by web-compat; nobody is arguing that.

That said, we can still make fixes in the name of increased consistency where
possible, and I'd argue that if setAttribute doesn't throw for undefined, it
should not throw for missing argument. From what I can tell you believe this is
still web compatible?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 20:33:57 UTC

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