- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:39:53 +1000
- To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Garrett Smith: > I disagree. That the DOM spec does not include null. It is very > verbose on what it does include, so it's not by accident. The fact that a boxed valuetype (in OMG IDL) was used to define the DOMString type leads me to believe that null was explicitly wanted as a member of that type. That’s different from dom Level 1 Core, where it was just a typedef: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/level-one-core.html#ID-C74D1578 Since there are some languages that include null in their string type and others that don’t, and with DOM meant to be language agnostic, it probably made more sense to define the DOM string type as including null than not. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 22:40:43 UTC