- From: David Bruant <bruant@enseirb-matmeca.fr>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:23:58 -0700
Le 27/04/2010 03:54, Geoffrey Sneddon a ?crit : > On 26/04/10 19:50, And Clover wrote: >> David Flanagan wrote: >> >>> Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about >>> just giving them a toArray() method? >> >> I like that, as a practical and explicit (JavaScript-specific) binding. >> >> In the longer term, what's the thinking on a more basic change: >> >> - Require specific DOM interfaces like NodeList, HTMLCollection, Element >> etc. to be available for prototype monkey-patching under their interface >> names as properties of `window`? >> >> Then we wouldn't have to worry about what Array-like methods need to be >> provided on HTMLCollection, because application and framework authors >> could choose whichever they liked to prototype in. >> >> IE8/Moz/Op/Saf/Chr already do this to a significant extent, but there's >> no standard that says they have to. It would allow DOM extension to be >> put on a much less shaky footing than the messy hack Prototype 1.x uses. >> >> Is this something that's a reasonable requirement for browsers in >> future? > > HTML5 through WebIDL and its ECMAScript binding already does require > this. > I can see where interfaces are expected to be exposed ([NamedConstructor]) in the global object, but I don't see where it is said that the prototype of the constructor must be extensible. I don't even see this in the section which is the relevent one in my opinion (Interface prototype object) I have read this version of WebIDL : http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/ David
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 11:23:58 UTC