- From: Kasimier Buchcik <K.Buchcik@4commerce.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:37:09 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: ML-www-dom <www-dom@w3.org>
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 23:16 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Ray Whitmer wrote:
>
> >
> > Can you tell me how many implementers of the standard would be made
> > retroactively incompatible by this sort of change to an intentional
> > part of DOM Level 1? I am not talking the major vendors current
> > implementations, but other and prior implementatiions? Please
> > enumerate those which will not be broken and let's see how many you
> > leave out. It is perhaps not as relevant to me as you would like it
> > to be that you personally do not care about these other
> > implementations which followed the standard. I have know list but
> > know of enough.
>
> Making either empty string or null an acceptable return value in this
> case will break 0 implementations. Can you name any that would be
How did you evaluate that it breaks 0 implementations?
> broken by making both behaviors conforming? I can't imagine how this
> is possible.
Yesterday I already posted a description of such a scenario.
In case you missed it:
If we have (e.getAttribute('foo') != "") then this will evaluate to
true if:
1) there is an attribute node and its value is other than ""
The change you request, would evaluate this to true if:
1) there is _no_ such attribute node (NULL != "")
2) there is such attribute node and its value is other than ""
So every existing code which tests if an attribute node's value is
non-empty, will break.
Regards,
Kasimier
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 09:43:37 UTC