Re: [selectors-api] Stringifying undefined (was: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec)

2009-02-18 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > Cameron McCormack wrote: >> >> Boris Zbarsky: >>> >>> On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure in Gecko is >>> due to a violation of this part of the API: >>> >>> Undefined=Empty >>> >>> This is using a WebIDL syntax from

Re: [selectors-api] Stringifying undefined (was: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec)

2009-02-18 Thread Rune Lillesveen
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:23:08 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote: If we could do the change quickly and have all browsers commit to making this change relatively quickly, preferably before shipping, and then demonstrate interoperability, then it is theoretically possible. But I don't know. I've

Re: [selectors-api] Stringifying undefined (was: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec)

2009-02-13 Thread Robin Berjon
Hey Lachlan, thanks for tracking this down. On Feb 13, 2009, at 14:23 , Lachlan Hunt wrote: But now that the NSResolver has been removed, the consistency reasoning no longer really applies. The benefit to debugging still sort-of does, but it is certainly debatable. Given that adding NSRe

Re: [selectors-api] Stringifying undefined (was: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec)

2009-02-13 Thread Lachlan Hunt
Cameron McCormack wrote: Boris Zbarsky: On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure in Gecko is due to a violation of this part of the API: Undefined=Empty This is using a WebIDL syntax from a working draft that we don't implement yet, and the current JavaScript DOM binding