- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:17:54 +0100
- To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Dave Massy" <dave.massy@microsoft.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:55:42 +0100, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] wrote: >> [Dave Massy wrote:] >>> As I mentioned previously a more complete example of staticNodeList >>> usage would also be appreciated. >> >> It's not clear to me what you mean with that. It's exactly like the >> thing getElementsByTagName returns except it's not live. This should >> be pretty clear from the draft. > > I think the points are that 1) the minimalist cases are kinda confusing > (when it's all HTML namespace, e.g., that you don't really need the > namespace param), Why is that? It all depends on the document it is used with... > 2) there's no information on what happens with > undefined HTML namespaces (e.g. no doctype, but I have an XHTML > namespace defined in NSResolver), I don't understand this scenario. > and 3) an example should probably > explicitly be given that shows removing an element that is in the > staticNodeList from the tree, and that it's still accessible. Do you have a proposed example? I'm willing to add such a thing. > I don't > think Dave was saying there's a problem there, just that there's a lot > of ambiguity, and that's how we got into a lot of the DOM > incompatibility messes to begin with. :) I don't think there's any ambiguity with the normative prose of the specification. So far you only commented on examples (besides the whole naming debate) and gave a scenario that didn't make sense to me that might affect the normative prose, but I doubt it. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 18:18:17 UTC