- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:50:55 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps@w3.org
Cameron McCormack wrote: > 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 don’t mind it being repeated. I got convinced on IRC that the redundancy isn't good and so I've now removed the statement entirely. I've also updated the IDL to include the [ImplementedOn=] extended attribute and replaced the preceding prose about it being implemented on those interfaces. Finally, I updated the Terminology and Conventions section to define that the interfaces referred to in the spec come from DOM3Core. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/ -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 13:51:32 UTC