- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:46:52 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 9/13/13 10:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> OK, fwiw I think I agree. The next question is whether they should be >> generic in the elements of the collection or not too. > > I don't really follow this. Are you talking about > Element.prototype.query? That should probably mimic other methods on > Element for now. Until we figure out the branding story and > subclassing etc. I mean whether the generic code does myarr[i].querySelectorAll() or whether it does CanonicalElementProto.querySelectorAll.call(myArr[i]) or whether it does CanonicalElementProto.canonicalQuerySelectorAll.call(myArr[i]), going in order from most generic to least generic. Or something else. > Well you said things were broken. I was wondering what the extent of > the brokenness was. I said underspecified, right? I think we've covered the various underspecification bits in this thread already: there's the question of how to get items from the collection and the question of how to get new collections from the items. -Boris
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 15:47:25 UTC