W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [Bug 12111] New: spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:10:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4DF7418C.7000509@nokia.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
All - given that addressing 12111 is a low priority for Ian, one way 
forward is for someone else to create a concrete proposal.

BTW, I don't think anyone from Opera or Safari has commented on bug 
12111 and if that is the case, it would be good to get their comments.


On Jun/14/2011 12:21 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Aryeh Gregor 
> <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com <mailto:Simetrical%2Bw3c@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch
>     <mailto:ian@hixie.ch>> wrote:
>     > The particular issue in question isn't a particularly important
>     one. The
>     > spec describes a superset of implementations, and is a logical
>     direction
>     > for the spec to go. (Even within the process, there's no reason we
>     > couldn't go to LC with it as is.) Implementations are the
>     ultimate guide
>     > here, when this issue bubbles up to the top of the priority list
>     then
>     > it'll get resolved one way or the other based on what they do
>     and want.
>     The spec does not describe a superset of implementations.  It
>     describes behavior that contradicts what implementations actually do.
>     For instance, if you set localStorage.foo = false, the spec requires
>     localStorage.foo to return boolean false.  In implementations, it will
>     return the string "false", which evaluates to boolean true.  It is not
>     realistically going to be possible for implementations to change to
>     what the spec currently says.
>     Furthermore, we have some implementers from each of IE, Firefox, and
>     Chrome saying that they don't intend to change to match the spec, and
>     no implementers saying they intend to change to match the spec.  That
>     should serve to indicate that the spec is broken and needs to change,
>     process issues aside.
>     I don't see what would take a few hours to change here.  Change all
>     the relevant types from any to DOMString, remove all the stuff about
>     structured clones, and let WebIDL do the work.  That's immediately
>     much closer to browser behavior than the current spec.
> I was about to write an email that said about the exact same thing. 
>  Then I saw Aryeh beat me to it.
> J
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:10:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:20 UTC