- From: Joseph Kesselman/Watson/IBM <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:25:38 -0400
- To: www-dom@w3c.org
I believe the only places where the DOM uses null values are when an attribute is expected to be an object, so it should always be possible for each of the DOM's language bindings to provide a suitable "null object". And I believe we do provide an indication of how nulls and empty strings are interpreted; in general, they are NOT considered interchangable. If you can cite specific places where those practices have been violated, we should definitely take another look at them. Otherwise, I think this is implementable as it stands. The "abstract" IDL shown in the body of the DOM spec is not guaranteed to be fully compliant OMG IDL. We know there are some keyword clashes, for example. The OMG seems to be aware of this and has not complained; instead, their response has been to try to develop a separate IDL binding for the DOM, just as there are bindings for other languages. I believe that binding does attempt to take advantage of valuetypes. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Monday, 18 September 2000 13:25:42 UTC