- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:48:15 -0400
- To: <www-dom@w3.org>
>Maybe this should better read > "If the version is null (or undefined) or empty string..." >because in ECMAScript the most common way to not supplying an argument is >leaving that argument "undefined" A few thoughts: I'd say that's a binding issue -- "what does null mean in this binding" -- since the main spec is supposed to be language independent and many languages do not permit optional/implied arguments or method overloading. There's a consistancy question. If we declare that undefined shall be taken as null here, we should probably do so throughout the API. Purely personal reaction: it strikes me as a bit late to be making that sort of large-scale change in the bindings. I admit it's likely to be backward-compatable, because nobody should have been issuing the truncated form of these calls... but forcing every implementation to update itself in order to support what is, at most, a minor coding convenience seems hard to justify. So I'd tend to put this one in the category of "Might have been nice if we'd thought of it, but we missed our opportunity." Of course I'm not an ECMAScript developer, so my opinion isn't highly significant and I'm perfectly willing to be outvoted on this one. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 08:48:53 UTC