- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:04:10 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 12/18/12 11:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Anne pointed out in IRC that, when all the other values are strings, > it is somewhat more convenient to have the "no value" value be a > string as well, and the empty string is the obvious choice for that > role. Convenient for whom? For the dictionary case, there is no extra convenience to it, in my opinion, over just having a null value allowed. For the LightLevelEventInit case, if we need to be able to represent "no value" in that interface, then I agree that "" is probably the way to go there, since it means that JS can just operate on the value as a string without having to worry about the "no value" case. Note that if desired you could till have the dictionary allow a nullable value so null/undefined work, and specify in prose that those are turned into the "no value" value of "" or whatever. It seems to me this would be more JS-friendly. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:04:37 UTC