- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:09:02 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. FWIW, in the dictionary you do not need to define a default value, at least not as far as events are concerned. For events you need to define a default value in prose (because of document.createEvent()). It needs to be neither nullable nor have a default value. For the interface my suggestion was indeed to use the empty string for the reason you state. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:09:29 UTC