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

> 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