W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2013

Re: [whatwg] Why are we merging Document and HTMLDocument again?

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:42:40 -0700
Message-id: <1D191C36-CE39-4A1F-AF45-A75673C35EA1@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>

On Sep 12, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>> On 7/12/13 1:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/13 3:30 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't want to merge the prototype objects for Document and 
>>>>>>>> HTMLDocument, because I don't want to stick a named getter 
>>>>>>>> on every document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'd be fine with having a Document descendant that is used for 
>>>>>>> Documents that have global scopes / browsing contexts / the 
>>>>>>> works, and one that is used for Documents that don't (e.g. 
>>>>>>> createDocument(), XHR); would that address this issue?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's one way to address it, yes...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just to be clear, this works for Mozilla, as long as it's clearly 
>>>>> defined and other vendors are on board. Arv?
>>>> 
>>>> Having not heard any interest from anyone else, I haven't done 
>>>> anything. If there's movement here, let me know.
>>> 
>>> That's because other UAs are just silently ignoring the spec as 
>>> currently written, for the most part...
>> 
>> I concur with Boris's concerns.
> 
> So you also support having a Document descendant that is used for 
> Documents that have global scopes / browsing contexts / the works, and one 
> that is used for Documents that don't (e.g. createDocument(), XHR), where 
> the former has the named getter and the latter doesn't?

I think that's what I'm suggesting except that I'm suggesting to keep calling the former HTMLDocument.

>> Can we at least avoid having OverrideBuiltins on Document?
> 
> Do you mean in general? Wouldn't that be non-backwards compatible?

I'm using the old terminology here.  I meant on Document, not HTMLDocument as we do keep OverrideBuiltins for the latter.

>> Or can we keep HTMLDocument that just defines name getter?
> 
> When would it be used? Are you agreeing with the proposal above? Or do you 
> have something different in mind?

As far as I checked, SVGDocument and alike don't have named getter either so I'd rather not introduce it any non-HTML document.

- R. Niwa
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 20:43:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:09 UTC