- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:39:22 -0400
- To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > See long post with an analysis of the exact OMG IDL meaning of the > DOMString type (which is NOT quite the same as ECMAScript string, note). I should note that there is one thing adding to the confusion. The use of String in the ECMAScript language bindings for the DOM. If one takes this to mean the ECMAScript String built-in type, this is not consistent with the value type semantics DOMString has. The inconsistency can probably be resolved in a number of ways, including modifying the definition of DOMString, declaring that the ECMAScript binding of DOMString is a String object (result of new String(), not a String itself), or declaring that a DOMString can be either a String or null. This last is probably the most backwards-compatible. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 00:40:05 UTC