W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [WebIDL] troublesome names, property attributes and related issues

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:15:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_oZn9DF7w4csquJd8o69eE1PSiVvfY0TRJXqyQhP5aZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>>> 4.5.4 Constants
>>> This section says that constants must be defined as properties on both the
>>> interface prototype object and the interface object.  Browsers don't
>>> currently seem to do this.  Try document.ELEMENT_NODE and
>>> Document.ELEMENT_NODE
>> Both return 1 in Gecko. Haven't checked other browsers though.
> Are you sure? I just tried evaluating both in FF6 using three different JS shells (web console, scratchpad, and squarefree).  In each case, document.NODE_ELEMENT returned 1 and Document.NODE_ELEMENT returned undefined.

Ah, ELEMENT_NODE doesn't live on the Document interface, it lives on
the Node interface. So both the Node constructor and all instances of
the Node interface (such as document) have the ELEMENT_NODE property.

I'm not married to having instances contain constants though. If no
other browsers do that, then it's likely not required for webcompat
and could be dropped.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 07:16:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC