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

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

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4EACC469.3080407@mcc.id.au>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, John Resig <jeresig@gmail.com>, Paul Irish <paulirish@google.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
On 20/10/11 3:50 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
> 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.
> It's insane that we even have a NodeList type which isn't a real array
> at all. Adding a parallel system when we could just fix the one we
> have (and preserve the value of a separate prototype for extension) is
> wonky to me.
>
> That said, I'd *also* support the ability to have some sort of
> decorator mechanism before return on .find() or a way to re-route the
> prototype of the returned Array.
>
> +heycam to debate this point.

Late replying here again, apologies, but I agree with others who say 
that an actual Array object should be returned from this new API given 
that it is not meant to be live.  What benefit is there from returning a 
NodeList?
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 03:29:18 GMT

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