W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2009

[whatwg] DOM Storage feedback

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:32:16 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0901131032p36596935sc1e70e3e4c118ad9@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:44:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> I talked with Cameron a while ago about what the default behavior
>> should be for null. We couldn't find any functions that required that
>> null be treated as "null", but there are several examples of functions
>> that require that null be treated as the empty string.
>
> alert() requires it.

How so? I couldn't imagine how a site could depend on that.

That said, this did make me think about document.write, where we do
seem to display 'null' rather than empty string. So this might be an
exception.

> Besides that I believe we (Opera) specifically did it
> for methods here and there to be more compatible with Internet Explorer and
> make sites work better.

Do you know of any sites worked better because of the change? Or
indeed that were affected at all by the change?

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 10:32:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:09 UTC