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

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

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:22:33 +1000
To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080710072233.GA22641@arc.mcc.id.au>

Cameron McCormack:
> > > 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”.

Simon Pieters:
> > 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.

Ian Hickson:
> Is this still an open issue on WebIDL, or was this resolved?

I believe this was fixed.  It now says that if ToString(ToUint32(P))=P,
then it’s treated as an index, otherwise a name.

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

Just the red boxes in the spec.  But maybe I should be using the WG’s
tracker.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 07:23:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:19 GMT