W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Selectors API naming

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:17:54 +0100
To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Dave Massy" <dave.massy@microsoft.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tkvef4e964w2qv@id-c0020>

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:55:42 +0100, Chris Wilson  
<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] wrote:
>> [Dave Massy wrote:]
>>> As I mentioned previously a more complete example of staticNodeList
>>> usage would also be appreciated.
>> It's not clear to me what you mean with that. It's exactly like the
>> thing getElementsByTagName returns except it's not live. This should
>> be pretty clear from the draft.
> I think the points are that 1) the minimalist cases are kinda confusing
> (when it's all HTML namespace, e.g., that you don't really need the
> namespace param),

Why is that? It all depends on the document it is used with...

> 2) there's no information on what happens with
> undefined HTML namespaces (e.g. no doctype, but I have an XHTML
> namespace defined in NSResolver),

I don't understand this scenario.

> and 3) an example should probably
> explicitly be given that shows removing an element that is in the
> staticNodeList from the tree, and that it's still accessible.

Do you have a proposed example? I'm willing to add such a thing.

> I don't
> think Dave was saying there's a problem there, just that there's a lot
> of ambiguity, and that's how we got into a lot of the DOM
> incompatibility messes to begin with.  :)

I don't think there's any ambiguity with the normative prose of the  
specification. So far you only commented on examples (besides the whole  
naming debate) and gave a scenario that didn't make sense to me that might  
affect the normative prose, but I doubt it.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 18:18:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:22 UTC