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

yes. sorry. I thought I'd better not increase the mailing list bandwidth
with a lone "Thank you" in a mail. :-s I was mistaken.
Thanks to everybody.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

>
> Hi, Slim-
>
> liorean wrote (on 3/7/08 10:59 AM):
> > 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.
>
>
> David's explanation is indeed correct (thanks, David).  Does this
> satisfy your comment?
>
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
>
>


-- 
Slim Amamou
http://NoMemorySpace.wordpress.com