- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:31:38 +1000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
Jonas Sicking: > If we went with option 1, what is the effect of the [optional] flag? > I.e. what is the difference between 1 and putting [optional] on all > arguments? The difference would be that without [optional] you’d be stuck with however undefined gets type converted into whatever type the argument is declared to be. With [optional], you can just define in prose what happens when you call that version of the operation without the argument. > I'd prefer to go with option 2, but use [optional] in more specs. This > way we can in places where it really does not make sense to leave out > an argument (such as for Node.appendChild) make that throw, while in > cases where leaving arguments out can be dealt with using [optional]. I agree. I’d like to know the opinion of any IE folks on the list. > … > An alternative way would be to go with option 2, but introduce a > [required] keyword. I’d rather option 1. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 07:32:16 UTC