- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:49:08 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > > I'm wondering why the [PutForwards=value] extended attribute is needed > for the htmlFor output element attribute ? It's an attempt to make it work the same as <label>'s htmlFor, while still supporting the new token-based API. On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Olli Pettay wrote: > > I agree. In general PutForwards makes APIs strange, IMO Location is a > good example of a pretty awkward API. In the case of output element, > element.htmlFor.value = "Something" isn't really more difficult than > element.htmlFor = "something"; True, but it would mean that it is inconsistent with <label> in a weird way. > It is a bit ugly that one .htmlFor is DOMSettableTokenList, > but other .htmlFors are DOMStrings Yeah. I'd love to change the other ones; is that safe? I've been relucant to risk it so far. > Btw why doesn't .classList have PutForwards > (in which case it could use DOMSettableTokenList) To set it, use className. I'd have liked to just make className into a DOMSettableTokenList, but that would mean it was no longer a String object, and while changing htmlFor might be safe, I'm almost certain changing className would not be. On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Magnus Kristiansen wrote: > > You could argue that every DOMSettableTokenList should have > PutForwards=value behavior by default, since it already forwards on > getting. I don't think you can do that in WebIDL currently. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:49:08 UTC