Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API

Another draft:  
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/draft/selectors-api.htm?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8&rev=1.16>


On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:31:22 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> As you note in your reply, the following paragraph:
>
> [...]
>
> ...is basically empty. Given that this is the only section that describes
> how to handle the nsresolver argument, I think this should be addressed.

I believe it's addressed now. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. If  
it eventually may come that far that DOM Level 3 XPath is not done in time  
I'll define it in the draft, but I rather not do that.


>>> I don't think "In ECMAScript bindings the nsresolver argument in both
>>> match and matchAll must be an optional argument." as a requirement
>>> makes sense. I think it would be better to phrase it as something like
>>> "In ECMAScript, if the nsresolver argument in an invocation of match()
>>> or matchAll() is omitted, UAs must handle the invocation as if the
>>> nsresolver argument was null." or something.
>>
>> I tried the "or something" part. Let me know how it turned out :-)
>
> Seems reasonable, although there is a bit of a leap between the concept  
> of
> languages supporting method overloading and the concept of the argument
> being omitted. (Also, note that technically ECMAScript doesn't support
> method overloading.)

That should be fixed now.


>> > If you really want to not use the term NodeList, I recommend defining
>> > StaticNodeList as:
>> >
>> >    typedef StaticNodeList NodeList;
>> >
>> > ...rather than duplicating the interface definition.
>>
>> Used your suggestion. Will remove the open issue after you checked it.
>
> Seems fine. It was Maciej's idea originally.

Thanks Maciej!


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Saturday, 25 March 2006 12:37:14 UTC