On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:04:14 +0200, Julian Reschke <
julian.reschke@...>
wrote:
> 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?
It's consistent with other JavaScript APIs were null also means "null".
Overloading this API to also do removal of the header is not a goal here
and is simply a bug in Firefox as it also does that for the empty string
value (Firefox simply treats null identically to the empty string, where
other browsers treat it identically to "null".
--
Anne van Kesteren
<
http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<
http://www.opera.com/>
