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.

Received on Monday, 19 January 2015 10:09:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:43 UTC