- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:07:48 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22321 --- Comment #2 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> --- Yes, though I'd probably invert the test in 3.1 to look more like 4.1 (so "if force is false"). A terminology question: are we using "omitted" or "not passed" for optional arguments? As in, could "force is false (false is neither true nor omitted)" be more clearly written as "force was passed and is false"? Or "force was not omitted and is false"? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 17:07:50 UTC