- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:13:14 +0200
- To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, www-dom@w3.org
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:07:47 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > I don't feel too strongly about having both .children and > .childElements, but I do think that .children is a little problematic > for authors... they will always have to check to see if Comment nodes > are included, because of the large marketshare for older versions of IE, > while .childElements allows them to write simple, clean, efficient code, > which is the whole point of an element-based API. If a legacy implementation has a bug adding a new feature only introduces the chance of more bugs, it won't actually solve them nor will it help authors support the legacy implementation. > I also prefer ElementCollection over HTMLCollection, especially for > environments where more XML is used. I don't know if there are any > deeper issues that would advantage one over the other, but I think it > would be confusing to authors to collect non-HTML elements in something > labeled HTMLCollection. You can request other data than XML using XMLHttpRequest. I don't think this should be of concern to us. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 21:13:50 UTC