Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:27:47 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <
julian.reschke@...> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Per the updated specification which uses Web IDL IE and Safari are
>>> conformant here. (null and undefined are simply stringified.)
>>
>> Not terrible useful, I would say. Is that something we have to live
>> with because of the IDL definition???
>
> It matches two implementations and is the default behavior for
> null/undefined when passed to something that accepts a string.
Apparently existing content does not rely on it (FF gets away with
implementing something that IMHO makes *much* more sense). So why
standardize it at all, or, when doing so, select something that doesn't
make sense in practice?
Or are you claiming that people who set a header to null *really* want
the specified behaviour?
BR, Julian
