- From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:38:35 +1000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 10/09/11 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Sean Hogan<shogun70@westnet.com.au> wrote: >> On 10/09/11 3:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> It's a completely useless function. It just implements the equality >>> operator. I believe most languages have a equality operator already. >>> Except Brainfuck [1]. But the DOM isn't implementable in Brainfuck >>> anyway as it doesn't have objects, so I'm ok with that. >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck >> If a DOM implementation returns node-wrappers instead of exposing the >> actual nodes then you could end up with different node-refs for the same >> node. I'm not sure whether that violates other requirements of the spec. > I would expect that to violate the DOM spec. I.e. I would say that if > an implementation returned true for > > someNode.firstChild != someNode.firstChild > > then I would say that that that shouldn't be allowed by the DOM. > > / Jonas > The other scenario I can think of is casting. What if I want an object that only implements the Element interface of an element, even if it is a HTMLInputElement? The two objects will not be equal, but will represent the same node. I imagine that was the motivation for initially including the method. Having said that, if no-one is using it then it is completely useless. Sean
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 01:39:00 UTC