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: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:24:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CANMdWTuN5QUf507-OYfVmMt=BDvvGi9fePdKCxosWi-bMjkAnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> 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...

That's true for a large percentage of developers for sure, but most web
developers I've talked to about this are surprised to learn about this
behavior and have never (intentionally) depended on it.

> 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've been trying to get some data on this, but I haven't had much success.
I'll report back if I do. But even if I get data, it'll be for specific
names, not a generic "what do pages do in on* handlers", so it wouldn't
actually help resolving this expando question.

 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.  :(

Well, it would be a small list + expandos. :)

> -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 18:25:46 UTC

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