W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Element.create(): a proposal for more convenient element creation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:10:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBW80mG-BUX=ja2sjvyDNLaRWdtU3w6O5XUNsb7aS579g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:31:04 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> MooTools is basically identical to Prototype, except that you can
>>>> additionally set listeners on the element during creation by using a
>>>> magical "events" property in the attribute bag, which takes an object
>>>> of event names and functions.  This would be nice to look into adding.
>>> Is this much better than just saying eg. Element.create("a", {href:
>>> "http://link", onclick: function(e) { ... } }, "link"}?
>> Hmm, is everything exposed as on* attributes now?  If so, then yeah,
>> just do that; no need to mess around with a magic property in the
>> attributes bag.
> This would still be magical as it is setting an IDL attribute rather than a
> content attribute.

Hmm.  onclick is a content attribute, no?  Or do you just mean that
assigning a function directly (rather than a string of code) is
something that can only be done via an IDL attribute?

If so, then good point, but I also expect that this wouldn't be very confusing.

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 16:37:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:23 UTC