W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

Re: HTMLCollection item() vs. namedItem() with [] syntax (detailed review of the DOM)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:49:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0807100649130.11215@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Simon Pieters wrote:
> > 
> > That’s different from what I currently have in the Bindings spec, 
> > which is basically “do a ToUint32() on the property name, and if the 
> > result is a non-negative integer, use the index getter, otherwise use 
> > the name getter”.
> 
> Hmm, seems like ToUint32 converts things like NaN and Infinity to 0. 
> Browsers don't do that. So I don't think that's good enough... e.g., we 
> want ["0x0"], [1/0], etc., to use the name getter.

Is this still an open issue on WebIDL, or was this resolved?

(More generally, is there a list of open issues on WebIDL?)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 06:50:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:56 UTC