- From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:00:08 -0400
- To: web API <public-webapi@w3.org>
Hi, Bjoern- I don't think that your solutions address the use case I was pushing for. I will present my counterargument, but just for the sake of moving the spec along, I will most likely drop this feature unless I get indication of support otherwise. Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> @@issue: should we add a childElements attribute >> that returns a list of elements? > > No! You can easily do this with > > for (child = element.firstElementChild; > child; > child = child.nextElementSibling) > array.push(child); > > for (var i = 0; i < array.length; ++i) > ... That forces the author to use a 2-pass solution at JS speeds, rather than at compiled-code speed (and footprint). > I do not see why you would do that though. Further, you can about as > easily do this using DOM XPath, XPath selectNodes, the CSS Query API, > DOM Level 2 Traversal, you can in fact just use Core like > > for (var i = 0; i < element.childNodes.length; ++i) > if (element.childNodes[i].nodeType == 1) > ... > > well you would really use > > for (child = element.firstChild; > child; > child = child.nextSibling) > if (child.nodeType == 1) > ... > > Counting is trivially implemented on top of these, or you can just > use XPath "count(*)". In what browser? > I understand a primary concern why SVG Tiny 1.2 > did not have many of the DOM Core features is because the NodeList > interface was regarded as expensive. And having childNodes live and > childElements not live would add considerable confusion. No need for > an alias for element.selectNodes("*") and element.cssQuery("*"). I doubt that smaller devices will implement those interfaces. We'll see. > As a comment on the draft, you have to define how the method behave > in case of unexpanded entity references and entity replacement markup. > I've explained this in a little bit more detail on www-svg at some > point. As discussed on IRC, I'll post my suggested handling of this situation in the next draft. I'd appreciate further feedback then. Regards- -Doug
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 16:01:35 UTC