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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:25:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CANr5HFWr4NUqjrBC-WfTcyrJSV9rHqXMDteZL3cMGOy9bLvYaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.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 Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> On 31/10/11 1:56 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>> Live NodeList instances don't need to be considered here. They're the
>> result of an API which generates them, and that API can be described
>> in terms of Proxies. No need to complicate NodeList or imply that we
>> need a different type.
>> Making NodeList instances real array unifies them all. We can get that
>> done too.
> Don't live and static NodeLists use the same prototype?

Yes, I envision they would. The restrictions on live lists are
probably going to be created by a proxy that wraps them and manages
their semantics.

> If they are
> separate, I don't see any problem with making them "real arrays", but I am
> not sure what the implications of that are.  Array.isArray == true, I guess?

For JS, it just means having a working ".length" property (in all the
ways that Arrays allow it to be used). Arrays are identical to other
objects in all other respects.

>  Do we have that ability within the bounds of ECMAScript yet? Note that we
> can already make NodeList.prototype === Array.prototype if we want, using
> appropriate Web IDL annotations.

We'll need ES 6 proxies to get the working .length thing today. Not ideal.
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 23:26:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:36 UTC