- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:04:14 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-webapi@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:27:47 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> Per the updated specification which uses Web IDL IE and Safari are >>> conformant here. (null and undefined are simply stringified.) >> >> Not terrible useful, I would say. Is that something we have to live >> with because of the IDL definition??? > > It matches two implementations and is the default behavior for > null/undefined when passed to something that accepts a string. Apparently existing content does not rely on it (FF gets away with implementing something that IMHO makes *much* more sense). So why standardize it at all, or, when doing so, select something that doesn't make sense in practice? Or are you claiming that people who set a header to null *really* want the specified behaviour? BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 16:05:53 UTC