- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:39:30 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Olli@pettay.fi" <Olli@pettay.fi>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:28:14 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> Indeed, Node.attributes is currently the only way to enumerate all the >> attributes of an Element. This makes me think there are probably >> people out there doing this, and so I suspect Node.attributes is >> needed for web compat. Additionally, it seems bad to remove the >> ability to enumerate attributes completely. Lastly, keeping Attrs as a >> type of object gives us something to return from DOM-XPath. >> >> What I suggest is #2 in Anne's list. Make Attrs into objects with the >> following properties: >> >> * name >> * value >> * namespaceURI >> * localName >> >> 'name' would be my guess for most commonly used when iterating all the >> atttributes. The others are the minimum set of attributes needed for >> proper enumeration >> >> We might also consider these attributes, though if they're not needed >> for web compat, then it would be nice to not add them IMHO. >> >> * ownerElement >> * prefix >> * nodeName >> * nodeValue >> >> Also, I wouldn't mind making value/nodeValue readonly, but I don't >> feel strongly about that. > > This in addition to #1 then, I assume? (Not having child nodes for Attr > would such a win already.) Yes, most definitely. The list of attributes above would be *all* the attributes on Attr objects, and .childNodes isn't in there. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 16:40:22 UTC