- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:12:59 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mozilla.com>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:57:23 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> Apologies if this has been discussed before and I missed it, or have >> forgotten about it. > > > It has been discussed before. I think last time this came up I was wondering > why we needed these various options for what to do with undefined and then > there is ES6 as well: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2012AprJun/0105.html Well, there's the generic discussion regarding how undefined and optional work together in ES6/WebIDL. But then there's a separate discussion about what's required for web compatibility in XHR. The outcome of the first discussion might very well affect the IDL for what we use in the spec. But the behavior we need for web compat is not really affected by how optional arguments are defined by ES6/WebIDL. > I filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16707 to make sure we > do not forget about this. Thanks! > Also, there's no XHR2. Sorry, my bookmark still said XHR2. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 07:14:03 UTC