W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [Elemement Traversal LC] why is the interface implemented as attributes in ECMASCRIPT?

From: liorean <liorean@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:59:38 +0100
Message-ID: <cee13aa30803070759y57201d69w9a782a46b4153faf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

On 07/03/2008, Slim Amamou <slim.amamou@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
> the ElementTraversal interface is bound to readonly attributes in
> ecmascript, whereas it is bound to methods in java.
> why?

Because having things like this as as properties is normal the
ECMAScript way, but having getter and setter functions is the normal
Java way.

> it would be more convenient if it was bound to methods in ecmascript either.
> i can think of two arguments for this :
>  - the bindings will be more consistent (so that you don't have
> "getChildElementCount" and "childElementCount" representing the same
> binding)

Having getter and setter functions using method syntax is a distinctly
foreign way of doing this in JavaScript. Plus, these properties
analogously match the way it's done for the node traversal bindings in
our earlier DOM versions. And thirdly, those would be two different
bindings to the same functionality, not the same binding.


Really, I think the DOM is too Java-istic from an ECMAScript
perspective already, and intra-language bindings coherency is more
important than inter-language bindings coherency.
-- 
David "liorean" Andersson
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 15:59:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 March 2008 15:59:49 GMT