25540 2014-05-03 04:43:58 +0000 Invalid use of [EnsureUTF16] 2014-05-26 23:53:34 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG XHR unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 24581 1 glenn annevk cam jungkees mike public-webapps public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 105016 0 glenn 2014-05-03 04:43:58 +0000 In three places, the syntax optional [EnsureUTF16] DOMString is used; however, this syntax is not valid according to WebIDL2 Production 58 [1]. Changing these three cases to: [EnsureUTF16] optional DOMString fixes these problems. [1] http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#proddef-Argument In one place, the syntax optional (... or [EnsureUTF16] DOMString or ...)? is used. Unfortunately, the only way to make this valid according to WebIDL2 is to move the extended attribute before "optional", which definitely makes this semantically awkward (if not ill formed). That is, one would have to write: [EnsureUTF16] optional (... or DOMString or ...)? which looks rather strange when "..." is not DOMString. 106322 1 annevk 2014-05-19 08:51:33 +0000 https://github.com/whatwg/xhr/commit/fad6118b670569bef63afc8d5e1bb5a94154f431 106424 2 glenn 2014-05-20 06:14:46 +0000 Thanks! 106774 3 glenn 2014-05-26 02:54:54 +0000 I see the change was made in the whatwg version, and not the downstream (w3c) version. Could you downstream this to W3C please? 106778 4 annevk 2014-05-26 08:21:08 +0000 Please don't reopen my bugs. 106789 5 jungkees 2014-05-26 10:10:52 +0000 W3C version updated: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html Thanks, 106792 6 glenn 2014-05-26 11:29:24 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #4) > Please don't reopen my bugs. You are confused. I reported the bug, therefore it is MY bug. You are merely the assignee. In any case, I (and any other reporter of a bug) damn well have the right to reopen a bug if it isn't satisfactorily addressed. I appreciate your addressing this bug in the WHATWG version, but the bug was reported against the W3C edition, so it isn't fixed until addressed in the latter. Thanks to Jungkee for following through with an update. 106795 7 annevk 2014-05-26 12:50:03 +0000 No it wasn't. The W3C version does not have bugs associated with it. Otherwise the bug would not have been assigned to me. 106813 8 glenn 2014-05-26 23:53:34 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #7) > No it wasn't. The W3C version does not have bugs associated with it. > Otherwise the bug would not have been assigned to me. Then please explain how the product code of WebAppsWG associated with this bug is associated with a WHATWG spec. Last time I checked the WebAppsWG was a W3C WG working on W3C specs (only).