W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Complex Return Type Information

From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:14:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPwaZpU2uF+cEatS=zEg7evvOy12Lz+VxkyosUJZek+GdXLsZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:

> From IRC (typos and redundancies were fixed) -
> [21:09] <PhistucK> There is a general problem - some properties return
> complex types, like HTMLCollection (document.anchors, element.children,
> more). We should show the members of these returned objects within the
> property. Right?
> [21:11] <PhistucK> Like dom/properties/anchors should include all of the
> methods that HTMLCollection has, like "namedItem".
> [21:11] <PhistucK> getElement(s)ByX should include all of the members that
> NodeList has and so on.
> [21:11] <fr0zenice> mhm dunno, if it's a complex type, maybe with it's own
> methods and stuff, could be worth a separate article/subarticles
> [21:12] <PhistucK> Of course, but we should draw the members from it in
> every property that returns it
> [21:14] <PhistucK> Just writing, "returns an HTMLCollection" is not very
> informative. We do it for objects. Everything should be as self contained
> as possible. We want to avoid unnecessary navigations, I guess.
> Extraneous navigations are not helpful.
>
> Any thoughts? other solutions?
>

Could we do something like we do for API_Object where we have a section for
the parents' methods/properties/events? I agree that just saying
"HTMLCollection" isn't hugely useful when you want to know how to *use *that
collection, but we should be clear about how the concepts relate.

>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 18:15:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:39 UTC