- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:05:25 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Per-Erik Brodin wrote: > Cameron McCormack wrote: > > Per-Erik Brodin: > >> The DOMString arguments 'options' and 'configuration' are never > >> referred to as being null, and thus I think it is safe to assume > >> that they will not be null and that the default conversion rules > >> apply (http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-DOMString). The > >> callback arguments are all referred to as being null so I think it > >> is safe to assume that they can be null. > > > > Interface types now *do not* include null as one of their values unless > > you make the type nullable explicitly. The HTML spec hasn?t been > > updated for this yet, though I have written a patch to do so: > > > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10640 > > I am aware of that. What I mean is the conclusions you can draw from > reading the spec text. I would expect the expected behavior to be the > same after this change, right? Thanks to Cameron's fantastic work, this is fixed now, so there should no longer be a need for reading between the lines. Please let me know if it's still ambiguous, though. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 00:05:25 UTC