- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:06:54 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-webapi@w3.org
On Mon, 26 May 2008 13:15:49 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:18:34 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >>> I do think that setting the header to the empty string (as if "" had >>> been >>> passed instead) is better behaviour, from an author's point of view. If >>> that would resolve this issue then that seems like a good choice. >> As far as I can tell three out of four browsers stringify to "null" / >> "undefined" for arbitrary headers and since authors should pass a >> string anyway I really don't think it's worth changing this. > > That behavior simply is not useful, and likely will hide bugs. Since it is the behavior of many JavaScript APIs I don't think authors will be surprised. > FF3 (removing the header) demonstrates that this case (null value) > either should be left unspecified, or specified with a more useful > behavior. Firefox demonstrates that it is not interoperable with the three other browsers. It does not demonstrate anything about the need to do this differently than currently specified. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 13:07:00 UTC