W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > December 2007

[selectors-api] Selectors API comments: section 2.1

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:27:39 -0500
Message-ID: <47704E7B.605@mit.edu>
To: public-webapi@w3.org

Comments on 

* What is the expected behavior of lookupNamespaceURI when a null 
DOMString is passed in?  Should it match the behavior when an empty 
string is passed in?  Note that in ECMAScript, for example, the tests:

   if (!prefix)


   if (prefix == "")

are not equivalent, to say nothing of

   if (prefix === "")

* The text "it MUST do either of the following" at the end of the second 
paragraph after the interface definition would be better written as "it 
MUST do one of the following".

* It's not clear what "similar constructs" means in the phrase "and 
other languages that allow similar constructs".  Does this mean 
"first-class functions", or something else?

* It should be clarified that if the NSResolver is a Function, invoking 
the function with a single string argument should replace calling the 
lookupNamespaceURI method.  I believe the DOM Level 2 Events ECMAScript 
bindings for EventListener have some language that could be reused here.

* I'm not sure what the "or does not return a DOMString" text in the "To 
resolve namespace prefixes" paragraph means.  Does this mean that if, 
say, an ECMAScript an object with a toString() method is returned this 
method must not be invoked and instead the namespace should be treated 
as unresolvable?

* What does "or equivalent" refer to in the "To get the default 
namespace" section?  Why is that not applicable to the "To resolve 
namespace prefixes" section?  I would expect empty string handling to be 
identical in both sections.

* It might make sense to talk about "callers" in this section instead of 
"user agents", though I'm OK with the existing language if the change is 
judged to be too confusing for non-technical readers of the specification.

* In the example paragraph starting with "For convenience", there is a 
missing 'i' in the word "insensitive".

Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2007 00:27:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:24 UTC