- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:07:04 +0000 (UTC)
- To: John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, John J Barton wrote: > > Yes and Firebug has to have special code for HTMLCollection because this > mistake was made in the past. Now we will have to have different special > code for Storage. Rather than modeling new API on old mistakes, consider > learning from the past experience and take a direction that developers > will find less confusing. Pseudo-arrays with "except... this and that" > makes APIs intricate and puzzling. A simpler and less ambiguous > approach would be better in my opinion. It's not an array or a pseudo-array. It's an enumerable JS host object. Firefox will have to have special code to implement Storage anyway; why is more special code to show it in Firebug a bad thing? In fact, it's probably a good thing, since for Storage you probably don't want to be showing the data in the debugger all the time anyway (since that has performance implications). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 22:07:41 UTC