W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Improving the DOM; rev 2

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:10:08 +0100
To: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v50sa6md64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:02:59 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
> The next question is whether we should impose restrictions on these  
> methods at the IDL or method implementation level. E.g. appending a  
> DocumentType to Document can be fine, but appending it to Element is  
> never fine. Also currently you know that appendChild(DocumentFragment)  
> on an Element is going to work. With these vararg methods you do not,  
> unless the arguments are restricted at the IDL level, or otherwise at  
> the method implementation level. I no longer feel strongly where we do  
> this, but I believe Ojan had some concerns with respect to performance.

I ended up defining these methods in terms of the existing mutation  
algorithms which simplified things a fair bit:  

This means you can do exactly the same with them as you can do today,  
except it's a whole lot simpler to develop with.

The new methods require new IDL syntax. You can follow the process on that  
in this bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14188

> As to what these methods return, we should probably go with chaining.  
> I'm not a big fan, but it seems to be what all the cool kids are doing  
> these days, and the cost is negligible.

convinced me not to add chaining for now. If people feel strongly we  
should add chaining all over the platform, and maybe we should, lets have  
a discussion on public-script-coord@w3.org first.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 14:10:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:36:59 UTC