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

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

From: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:23:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHfnhfqdG3GrBSsHE6EXuVEmM3LSrPEPCRtaT8=nSmbxxEF9mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, 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 Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> 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?
>

As much as I hate saying this: introducing a third return type would be
counter-productive, as you'd now have live NodeList, static NodeList and
subclassed Array. Congratulations, the cluster-f*ck continues in true form.
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 20:24:19 GMT

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