This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
in 3.2.2 appears "The type of the attribute must not be a nullable or non-nullable sequence type, and it must not be a union type if one of its member types (or one of its member types’s member types, and so on) is a nullable or non-nullable sequence type." is it not redundant to say "nullable or non-nullable sequence type" when "sequence type" would suffice? or is not the case that "nullable or non-nullable" is tautologous? if it is not, then an example is sorely needed
I use "sequence type" to mean the same thing as "non-nullable sequence type". I used the phrase "nullable or non-nullable sequence type" because I thought "(potentially nullable) sequence type" or similar would be confusing. I think I will go through and replace instances of "nullable or non-nullable X" with "X or nullable X".
Done: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.xml.diff?r1=1.485;r2=1.486;f=h