Joel,
can a overloaded method be added too ?
public final native String getAttribute(String name, boolean
returnNullIfNotFound)
so that getAttribute(String name) return the current behaviour as
return by browser so that for those who program browser-specific code
can handle it.
and For those who want to maintain single code base, setting a flag
will force it to return null if attribute is not found.
It will be too verbose to do the following check.
String _i = (hasAttribute("xxx") ? getAttribute("xxx") : null); //
or use a if
This will be good.
String _i = getAttribute("xxx", true);
On Sep 2, 12:46 am, "Joel Webber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
> There is certainly a possibility that this change was a mistake, but it does
> *not* appear cut-and-dried from reading the spec. Here is the actual text
> from the DOM spec:
>
> ---
> getAttribute
> Return Value
> DOMString The Attr value as a string, or the empty string if that
> attribute does not have a specified or default value.
> ---
>
> Depending upon how you interpret that (especially the definition of the
> phrase 'does not have a specified or default value'), you could see it
> either way. It certainly doesn't specify that you *can* depend upon a null
> return value to determine that an attribute doesn't exist. In fact, it
> doesn't even address the definition of a 'non-existent' attribute. You could
> make the argument that it enumerates the valid types for the return value as
> "a string, or the empty string", specifically excluding 'null'. Or you could
> reasonably argue that all browsers *do* return null for undefined
> attributes. But the reality is that it's not entirely dependable. Let me
> demonstrate by example:
>
> <div id='foo'>
>
> var foo = document.getElementById('foo');
> getAttribute('id')
> IE7: foo
> Firefox3: foo
> getAttribute('className')
> IE7: ""
> Firefox3: null
> getAttribute('tabIndex')
> IE7: 0
> Firefox3: null
> getAttribute('xxx')
> IE7: null
> Firefox3: null
>
> This puts us between a rock and a hard place. If we allow developers to
> depend upon the return value being null, it won't always work. Do we then
> have to put an explicit test in getAttribute() to force a null return value
> in weird corner cases like tabIndex and className?
>
> The only thing that appears clear to me in the spec is that you should
> probably call hasAttribute() if you're not sure whether it's there or not --
> which we would need to add to Element (and implement somehow on IE, since
> it's not there by default). I would also be willing to consider changing the
> type-coercion in getAttribute(), but only with the strong caveat that its
> behavior is not specified when the attribute is 'not specified'.
>
> Cheers,
> joel.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ian Bambury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2008/8/31 Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > Could someone from Google explain why there has been this diversion from
> >> the
> >> > path of 'least surprise'?
>
> >> Because that's how the DOM is defined:
> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#ID-745549614
>
> > No it's not. w3.org's *recommendations" that you link to state that
> > getAttribute() returns the string, or an empty string if the attribute is
> > empty and there is no default. It doesn't appear here to recommend any
> > return value if the attribute does not exist.
>
> >> > What suddenly became so wrong with returning what
> >> > JS gives you?
>
> >>http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=3568
> >> Apparently, not all browsers give you nulls.
>
> > That doesn't explain the sudden change.
>
> >> On Aug 31, 4:09 pm, "Ian Bambury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > And now I can't tell the difference between an attribute which is
> >> missing,
> >> > and an attribute which is there but empty...
>
> >> Blame Microsoft eventually at first...
>
> > Why is it Microsoft's fault that Google made the change?
>
> > I'm quite happy to blame Microsoft for anything and everything that has
> > ever or will ever happen (I don't want to look out of place here) but if
> > there is a genuine connection, all the better.
>
> > The bottom line for me is that IE, FF, Opera and Safari all return null in
> > raw JavaScript if the attribute doesn't exist - I really don't give a
> > monkey's about the other browsers that GWT supports (!?) - and since when
> > have Google worried about being officially compliant over getting the job
> > done?
>
> > Ian
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
