- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:40:52 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> 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. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/#nodeselector Given the current WebIDL draft, this means they stringify to "null" and "undefined", respectively. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:41:34 UTC