2008/11/14 Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> WebKit has a host class that is identical to the native String class in
>> every way, except that it compares equal to null and undefined, vended in
>> rare circumstances.[...]
>
> == or ===?
>
> Both.
>
It seems that is a false statement. We can test the filter example by
comparing it to null using == and === in Webkit:-
javascript:alert('' == document.body.style.filter)
javascript:alert(null == document.body.style.filter)
both true
javascript:alert(null === document.body.style.filter)
javascript:alert('' === document.body.style.filter)
both false.
> Could you say more about this, or point at any existing docs?
>
> Specifically, we expose a "filter" property on CSSStyleDeclaration, in
> support of the SVG filter CSS property. However, many sites test for
> "filter" to detect support for MSIE's proprietary "filter" property, which
> sadly has the same name but completely incompatible syntax. Thus, we return
> this kind of magical undetectable string so if tests don't detect us as IE.
> It works basically the same ways as Mozilla's undetectable document.all,
> which we also support.
>
I have doubts that having an empty string would protect scripts. It
would seem to cause more harm than good. Where are the scripts that
you prevented from breaking?
Garrett
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
