W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:18:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CANr5HFUof+KvPOr9Ko5MOvu1ma4e9hZQW=-amr9poZB32xfoUw@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT