- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:08:26 -0700
- To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au> wrote: > On 10/09/11 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Sean Hogan<shogun70@westnet.com.au> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/09/11 3:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>>> >>>> It's a completely useless function. It just implements the equality >>>> operator. I believe most languages have a equality operator already. >>>> Except Brainfuck [1]. But the DOM isn't implementable in Brainfuck >>>> anyway as it doesn't have objects, so I'm ok with that. >>>> >>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck >>> >>> If a DOM implementation returns node-wrappers instead of exposing the >>> actual nodes then you could end up with different node-refs for the same >>> node. I'm not sure whether that violates other requirements of the spec. >> >> I would expect that to violate the DOM spec. I.e. I would say that if >> an implementation returned true for >> >> someNode.firstChild != someNode.firstChild >> >> then I would say that that that shouldn't be allowed by the DOM. >> >> / Jonas >> > The other scenario I can think of is casting. What if I want an object that > only implements the Element interface of an element, even if it is a > HTMLInputElement? The two objects will not be equal, but will represent the > same node. I imagine that was the motivation for initially including the > method. JS doesn't have casting. At a minimum it should be removed from JS bindings. > Having said that, if no-one is using it then it is completely useless.
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 20:09:21 UTC