W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Element.create(): a proposal for more convenient element creation

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABZUbM1Yd9W68+8xmDLFioZL_8-QfsK945h+pa-vCfuweXzKvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
On 8/6/11, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
>> Element.create looks neat. Three thoughts:
> ...
>> Let me briefly reiterate that I think we want *both* Element.create
>> and constructors; they have complementary uses.
> I agree.

And for no reason, it seems.

>
>>
>> Second, re: setAttribute vs setting properties, there might be types
>> other than functions we want to not treat as strings; for example if a
>> UA implements CSSOM it might be nice to be able to set a style without
>> having to serialize and reparse the CSSStyleDeclaration.
>>
>> Can we spec whether something in the attributes hash is set via
>> setAttribute or via setting a property based on the IDL for that element?
> How about .attributes as another reserved word:
>
> Element.create('div', { attributes: { 'class': 'foo'} });
> Element.create('div', { attributes: [ 'class','foo','class','bar'] }
> ).attr({textContent: 'Bar class'});
>
textContent is a property, not an attribute. Properties vs attributes
was already explained in this thread.
[...]
-- 
Garrett
Received on Saturday, 6 August 2011 22:55:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT