[webkit-dev] Runtime setting for incomplete features

Jeremy Orlow jorlow at chromium.org
Mon Sep 21 12:05:51 PDT 2009

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote:

> I think shooting for perfect compatibility might be nice, but is probably
> not required.
> I do think that we ought to be returning undefined instead of null in those
> cases, though, just to catch people who are accidentally using isUndefined()
> utility functions from common libraries. It would not be hard to define some
> kind of [mapNullToUndefined] custom attribute for the code generator.
> I'll probably be adding a flag for Chromium shared workers in the near
> future, and I could tackle this at that time if people think this is a
> reasonable solution.

This seems like a good solution to me.

Jeremy, do you do anything to turn off the Storage constructor (i.e.
> window['Storage']) if storage is disabled?

No.  Someone filed a compatibility bug against Chromium the other day
because CNET was assuming that if the Storage constructor existed
sessionStorage existed.  This kind of behavior doesn't seem like something
we'd want to encourage.  That said, if LocalStorage and SessionStorage were
both disabled, I suppose we _could_ disable the constructor if we did think
it was the right thing to do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20090921/637892ae/attachment.html>

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list