- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:50:24 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> >> Firefox appears to have some issues that might related to the API, though >> I haven't investigated the cause of those yet, so I don't know for sure. > > On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure in Gecko is due to > a violation of this part of the API: > > Undefined=Empty > > This is using a WebIDL syntax from a working draft that we don't implement > yet, and the current JavaScript DOM binding in Gecko always converts > undefined in parameters to the string "undefined". > > If this part of WebIDL is stable, we can go ahead and implement it, but I > see no obvious evidence of that from the WebIDL working draft. Out of curiosity, are there any other methods in the DOM that treat undefined as the empty string? If not, is there really a reason to make these two functions different? An alternative would be to not mention behavior for undefined at all and let it be whatever the default is for WebIDL once that spec makes up its mind. It seems more important to me to behave consistently with other methods than to have any specific behavior for undefined. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 19:51:04 UTC