W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: ElementTraversal progress?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:03:52 -0700
Message-ID: <485FE588.7060904@sicking.cc>
To: Webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> Followup to webapps group please (reply-to set for this mail)
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:56:22 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>  On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:05:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>>>> I wanted to implement the ElementTraversal spec for the next release 
>>>> of firefox (after FF3). However last I heard there was still an 
>>>> outstanding issue of if we wanted to have .childElementCount 
>>>> unsigned long or if we wanted a .childElements NodeList.
>>>  I guess Doug will pipe up soon, but as I understand things from him 
>>> he thinks it makes sense to leave the spec as is. Opera, Ikivo and 
>>> BitFlash are known to have implementations that are believed to be 
>>> conformant to the current spec.
> ...
>> In mozilla we would actually even implement the .childElementCount 
>> property by keeping a hidden childNodes list internally. But that 
>> might be specific to the mozilla implementation.
> Indeed, it seems from discussing it that it would. Checking back with 
> the implementor at Opera, we would prefer to leave the spec as it is for 
> now, and if necessary write another, even smaller spec that offered the 
> node list functionality if you really want it.

What about the issue I raised here:


Which no one replied to.

If you implement the HTML DOM you should already have code that not only 
filters out elements, but even filters out elements of a specific name. 
Seems like that code should be reusable?

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 18:04:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:10 UTC