- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:03:52 -0700
- To: Webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Followup to webapps group please (reply-to set for this mail) > > On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:56:22 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:05:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> > >>>> I wanted to implement the ElementTraversal spec for the next release >>>> of firefox (after FF3). However last I heard there was still an >>>> outstanding issue of if we wanted to have .childElementCount >>>> unsigned long or if we wanted a .childElements NodeList. >>> I guess Doug will pipe up soon, but as I understand things from him >>> he thinks it makes sense to leave the spec as is. Opera, Ikivo and >>> BitFlash are known to have implementations that are believed to be >>> conformant to the current spec. > ... >> In mozilla we would actually even implement the .childElementCount >> property by keeping a hidden childNodes list internally. But that >> might be specific to the mozilla implementation. > > Indeed, it seems from discussing it that it would. Checking back with > the implementor at Opera, we would prefer to leave the spec as it is for > now, and if necessary write another, even smaller spec that offered the > node list functionality if you really want it. What about the issue I raised here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0214.html Which no one replied to. If you implement the HTML DOM you should already have code that not only filters out elements, but even filters out elements of a specific name. Seems like that code should be reusable? / Jonas
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 18:04:57 UTC