W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2010

[whatwg] Adding ECMAScript 5 array extras to HTMLCollection

From: David Bruant <bruant@enseirb-matmeca.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:23:58 -0700
Message-ID: <4BD72BBE.80106@enseirb-matmeca.fr>
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/

Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 11:23:58 UTC

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