Re: [selectors-api] Stringifying undefined

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
>> So ideally what we do here is simply in line with how we plan to make all
>> APIs that accept strings work (with exceptions).
> Yup, that's exactly what I've been arguing (both for this and for
> other APIs). I think we should not have [Null=...] or [Undefined=...]
> in there at all for now. Instead put some wording in that says that
> we're doing whatever the default is for WebIDL, but that that isn't
> fully locked down as of yet (since the spec is still a WD).

I have now removed both the [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes 
from the IDL and added a note advising implementers that WebIDL defines 
how to handle null and undefined.

Given the current WebIDL draft, this means they stringify to "null" and 
"undefined", respectively.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:41:34 UTC