- From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:21:16 -0400
- To: Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cheers! On 6/23/11, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Adam Barth: >>>>>>>> > WebKit is looser in this regard. We probably should change the >>>>>>>> > default for new IDL, but it's a delicate task and I've been busy. >>>>>>>> > :( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about for old IDL? Do you feel that you can make this change >>>>>>> without breaking sites? One of the “advantages” of specifying the >>>>>>> looser approach is that it’s further down the “race to the bottom” >>>>>>> hill, >>>>>>> so if we are going to tend towards it eventually we may as well jump >>>>>>> there now. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't remember getting a single bug filed on Geckos current >>>>>> behavior. There probably have been some which I've missed, but it's >>>>>> not a big enough problem that it's ever been discussed at mozilla as >>>>>> far as I can remember. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, there's a bunch of WebKit-dominate content out there >>>>> that folks are afraid to break. We discussed this topic on some bug >>>>> (which I might be able to dig up). The consensus was that the value >>>>> in tightening this for old APIs wasn't worth the compat risk (e.g., in >>>>> mobile and in Mac applications such as Dashboard and Mail.app). >>>>> >>>>> For new APIs, of course, we can do the tighter things (which I agree >>>>> is more aesthetic). It mostly requires someone to go into the code >>>>> generator and make it the default (and then to special-case all the >>>>> existing APIs). I'd like to do that, but it's a big job that needs to >>>>> be done carefully and I've got other higher priority things to do, so >>>>> it hasn't happened yet. >>>> >>>> If there is agreement that new APIs should throw for omitted >>>> non-optional parameters, then it seems clear that WebIDL should use >>>> that behavior. >>>> >>>> That leaves the work for safari (and possibly other webkit devs) to go >>>> through and mark parameters as [optional] in their IDL. Possibly also >>>> filing bugs for cases where you want the relevant spec to actually >>>> make the argument optional. I realize that this is a large amount of >>>> work, but this is exactly what we have asked in particular of >>>> microsoft in the past which has been in a similar situation of large >>>> divergence from the DOM specs, and large bodies of existing content >>>> which potentially can depend on IE specific behavior. >>> >>> Think folks are agreed that's the path we should follow. My only >>> concern is that we don't have anyone signed up to do the work on the >>> WebKit side. >> >> Just to update this thread, Mark Pilgrim has stepped forward to get >> the ball rolling on this work, so WebKit is making progress on this >> front. > > I'm happy to report that WebKit's implementation of IndexedDB now > follows WebIDL and throws TypeError on all functions when called with > missing required arguments. We have grandfathered in all existing IDL > files to use the old, looser code generator, but we are actively > working on migrating *all* 521 IDL files to use the new, stricter > generator (with [Optional] flags in places where we can't break > compatibility). IndexedDB is the first success in this process; as an > experimental API, we feel no need to maintain compatibility and have > opted for the stricter semantics everywhere, matching the WebIDL and > IndexedDB specs exactly. Next will be other experimental APIs like the > web audio API and the File API, where we hope to have similar levels > of success. > > -Mark > > -- Sent from my mobile device
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 02:21:54 UTC