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

Re: Adding methods to Element.prototype WAS: [Selectors API 2] Is matchesSelector stable enough to unprefix in implementations?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:04:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4ECBE417.6030402@mit.edu>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 11/22/11 12:57 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> The fewer properties that are exposed this way, the smaller the quirk
> is.

I think the problem is that from web developers point of view the quirky 
behavior is _not_ exposing properties.  Certainly in the short term...

In the long term, since we have to expose all expandos, I suspect that 
not exposing properties will continue to be seen as the quirky behavior.

Note, by the way, that having to expose expandos (including expandos on 
prototypes) but not new built-in properties might make for some fun 
spec-work (e.g., what happens when the standard adds a property but then 
some page overrides it on the prototype with a different property 
definition: should the page-defined value be exposed?).

Again, some decent data on what pages actually do in on* handlers would 
be really good.  I have no idea how to get it.  :(

> I was hoping that we could have a fixed small list of properties
> that the spec says are exposed. Maybe that's too ambitious and doesn't
> actually buy us much though.

Given the expando situation, I'm not sure that approach works at all.  :(

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 18:04:49 GMT

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