- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:23:46 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Daniel Glazman wrote: >> 1. congrats for this spec, I love it ; I can't count how many times in >> page or chrome script I am filtering out nodes that are not element >> nodes. >> >> 2. the ElementTraversal interface has a |childElementCount| attribute >> but misses access to an individual childElement based on its index. >> That would be really useful. Two solutions here : >> >> a. you remove the childElementCount attribute in favor of a >> >> readonly attribute NodeList childElements; >> >> and that NodeList has all we need > > It was the SVG Working Group that originally came up with the interface > and they, as I understand it, decided against having any NodeList in the > SVG Tiny 1.2 DOM. They rather introduced the interface to allow imple- > mentations to discard some nodes like comments and text nodes with only > white space while keeping compatibility with implementations that keep > them. I would imagine they would be unhappy with such a change. I agree with Daniel here. I'm not really following your argument. Are we trying to keep compatibility with the SVG spec here? Is the interface as designed now 100% compatible with SVG? If we're not 100% compatible with SVG, why would they oppose an improvement like the suggested one? I don't see how having the suggested interface would affect if you can discard other nodes entirely or not, that seems to be more affected by the *other* interfaces in the various DOM specs (such as DOM L1 Core). If we don't provide a way to grab elements by index I don't really see a purpose of the childElementCount attribute. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 16:24:26 UTC