- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 13:37:20 -0400
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: public-webapps@w3.org
On 5/7/11 10:03 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > For document.write(), Gecko, Webkit (including Safari 5), Opera and IE > write "null" on both Windows and Mac. I don't know which version of > Safari you were using that gave you a different result. I was using Safari 5 on Mac; looks like it does something weird with document.write from a javascript: URI that's unrelated to the handling of null. >> There are various other cases that have this behavior. In Gecko, >> anything that goes through JS_ValueToString (instead of default >> XPConnect argument conversion that converts null to a void empt) will do >> this. This is unfortunately not particularly consistent. > > Is there any reason to believe that any or all of those are > intentionally done that way for this handling of null, or are they > merely a result of the way the programmers arbitrarily decided to > implement them? For the cases I describe above, the latter. >> Furthermore, some IDL in Gecko explicitly treats null as "null". In >> addition to the selector API, there's createHTMLDocument, > > Opera throws an exception when invoking createHTMLDocument(null). Is > there any evidence that stringifying to "null" is required for > compatibility at all? No idea. >> .text on HTMLAnchorElement, > > a.text is defined as an alias for a.textContent in HTML, which does > stringify null to "" in all implementations. I'm just saying that in Gecko it's not an alias at the moment. > Is there any reason why .text and .textContent need to be > handled differently? No idea. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2011 17:37:49 UTC