- From: Travis Leithead <travil@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:59:47 -0700
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>
- CC: Webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I thought that Node.nextSibling / previousSibling work this way? Isn't the whole reason for ElementTraversal to explicitly do element navigation only (a use case that nextSibling/previousSibling made more complicated for web developers)? -----Original Message----- From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Glazman Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:57 AM To: olli@pettay.fi Cc: Webapps Subject: Re: comment on Element Traversal Spec Olli Pettay wrote: > On all nodes? Doesn't make sense to have nextElementSibling on a > #document or #attribute or > #documentFragments etc. > Perhaps those could be available on #text nodes, though, even in that > case when node is under > attribute, next/previousElementSibling would be a bit strange. To be precise, I would like to have these on EntityReference, Element, ProcessingInstruction, Comment, Text, CDATASection, Entity, Notation Of course, you're right, it does not make real sense on Document, DocumentFragment, DocumentType and Attr. But we could fire an exception or reply null. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 17:00:33 UTC