- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:09:55 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> >> I don't really feel strongly on the subject, however it appears that >> most people on the public-script-coord felt that catch-alls were a >> really bad idea and not something to be furthered. And you could argue >> that adding enumerability to the catch-alls is furthering them. > > Although I think there is not the same degree of concern about array-like > index accessors (indeed many conceded that it was a good pattern). Indeed. >> And since it appears that UAs are far from consistent, it's likely not >> that much content out there that depend on the enumerability of >> catch-alls. > > For catch-all getters and index getters on HTMLFormElement that may be true. > But I suspect people do depend on enumeration for HTMLCollections and > NodeLists. Though I'm not really sure what behavior they would depend on. > > What would your recommendation for form element be - that neither index nor > named properties should be enumerable? Only index properties enumerable? My recommendation is that only index properties are enumerable. My initial email was intended just to speak for named catch-alls, not in reference to index getter/setters at all. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 24 October 2009 00:10:50 UTC