W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2008

[whatwg] Fwd: HTML 5 : Misconceptions Documented

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:02:55 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660808121002p335f10b0i4643828f9198aaaf@mail.gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML 5 : Misconceptions Documented
To: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl>


On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
<giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote:
> While 'form.elements' is not obsolete, 'form.elements.something' (to mean
> 'form.elements.namedItem("something")') is.  Actually, it is some news to me
> that such syntax is supported; I was only aware of the syntax
> 'form.something' (obsolete, but convenient) and
> 'form.elements("something")'.

You really ought to read the specs; I've posted numerous links in this thread..

> That 'form.length' mirrors
> 'form.elements.length', while still supported, is just ridiculous; I missed

Read the HTML DOM 1 and 2 specs.

> that as well.  Everything you say is true, except that the merrie olde
> syntaxe is not that ambiguous as you present it.  Indeed, I cannot see any
> ambiguity at all.

What ambiguity?

> I am not using MSDN as the source of information what the Web should look
> like; I am using it to understand existing code that the standard does not
> cover, e.g. 'form.control' or 'new Image()' (incidentally, this is
> 'Image.Create()' in Visual Basic Scripting Edition).
> Thanks for pointing that out.
> Chris
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 10:02:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:04 UTC