- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:29:58 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-webapi@w3.org
On Sun, 25 May 2008 20:40:48 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > Agreed. We have in the past said that in the cases where it doesn't seem > like the web is depending on a certain behavior one way or the other do > what is most useful. I don't really think it matters much if null is > treated as 'remove' or as 'do nothing', but appending 'null' seems > pretty useless in pretty much all cases. It's pretty common behavior for a lot of APIs though Firefox seems to do it differently from everyone else quite often if I remember correctly. > We shouldn't let what webidl says dictate what we do one way or the > other. It's just a spec for the idl language, not a recommendation for > how interfaces should behave. null/undefined are not really part of the setRequestHeader() method. We just need to deal with them somehow and doing what similar APIs do in such cases makes sense. > FWIW I think the webidl spec should be changed here, but i'll raise that > in a thread for that spec. I think it makes sense for Web IDL to specify the most common behavior as default. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 22:30:13 UTC