- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:18:32 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, John Resig <jeresig@gmail.com>, Paul Irish <paulirish@google.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > On 2011-10-20 12:50, Alex Russell wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> >>> Oh, and as a separate issue. I think .findAll should return a plain >>> old JS Array. Not a NodeList or any other type of host object. >> >> I strongly agree that it should be an Array *type*, but I think just >> returning a plain Array is the wrong resolution to our NodeList >> problem. WebIDL should specify that DOM List types *are* Array types. > > We need NodeList separate from Array where they are live lists. No we don't. The fact that there's someone else who has a handle to the list and can mutate it underneath you is a documentation issue, not a question of type...unless the argument is that the slots should be non-configurable, non-writable except by the browser that's also holding a ref to it. > I forget > the reason we originally opted for a static NodeList rather than Array when > this issue was originally discussed a few years ago.
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 11:19:25 UTC