W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Defining a constructor for Element and friends

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:09:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78gpzObSJqFXWk1KiYCvrxF+-7BuFZWfeeuF+xEqUJhPXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> If so, it seems it removes some flexibility with how HTML uses interfaces.
> In particular many elements use HTMLElement and it should be possible to
> change them to use a more specific interface. How do you envision to solve
> this? Should we assign element-specific interfaces to all post-HTML4
> elements now, just in case? Or make new HTMLElement('ruby') create an
> HTMLRubyElement? Something else?

You are correct that the forward compatibility aspects of Domenic's
proposal are lacking. I think we should introduce classes on a
one-per-element basis. And we should probably lock down some of the
generic interfaces or at least restrict them to only allow elements
with dashes in their name.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 19 January 2015 10:09:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC