- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:56:56 +1100
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
Cameron McCormack: > > * In section 6, I don’t think it’s necessary to explicitly mention > > undefined, since it’s already handled by the annotation in the IDL. > > If you do want to include this in the prose, I think it needs to be > > qualified to say that this applies to an ECMAScript language binding > > of the interface. (null’s OK, since you can talk about null at the > > level of IDL values so it’s applicable to any language.) Lachlan Hunt: > I don't see why this is a problem. Technically both null and undefined > are handled by the IDL, but stating it implicitly in the prose makes it > clearer. I haven't made this change yet, because I want to avoid > making non-editorial changes at this stage. But feel free to convince me > during this next LC period. OK, will do. :) -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 07:57:47 UTC