Re: Element Traversal comment

Hi !

Since most people agree that these features would be useful, and because  
you have a deadline, you can leave it for a 1.1 version. I think the issue  
is not whether is useful or not, but rather specifiying the details.
I have no problem with waiting (as long as it's not that much :) ).

And currently I have no other comment on the specification, so its fine by  
me.

Good job. Bye.


On , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Joćo-
>
> Joćo Eiras wrote (on 7/29/08 7:10 PM):
>>  The Element Traversal WD define childElementCount on the Element  
>> interface.
>> Personally I see little use for such property by itself.
>> It would make much more sense to have childElements (similar to  
>> childNodes on Node), and therefore we could use childElements.length to  
>> get the same value as childElementCount. childElements would also be a  
>> live NodeList.
>>  Most use cases for Element only transversal require looping NodeLists,  
>> and if the author still has to filter nodes from these NodeLists by  
>> their nodeType, then that beats the entire purpouse of this  
>> specification.
>
> Thanks for your comment.  Last Call for this specification is over, but  
> I appreciate your review nonetheless.
>
> This issue has been discussed at great length (see this thread [1],  
> among others), and a resolution has been reached.  Justification for the  
> childElementCount attribute, including a concrete use case, in included  
> in the specification, and the attribute has already been implemented in  
> multiple user agents.
>
> While many uses of Element Traversal do not require this attribute, I  
> speak from personal developer experience when I confirm that it is  
> useful.  So, no change to the specification will be made at this late  
> stage.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Mar/0226.html
>
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 23:58:08 UTC