- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:12:06 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, www-dom@w3.org
On 2/18/12 3:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:17:52 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> I really think that the whole named getter issue is something that we >> should not take lightly. It has many similarities with the scope chain >> issue for on* attributes in that it causes namespace collisions making >> it hard to add features in the future. >> >> It seems to me that we should at least try to avoid propagating the >> named getter behavior any further, and ideally try to actively >> deprecate it to see if it's possible. > > Named getters are nice for authors, and besides, it was already pointed > out it's not avoidable here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2012JanMar/0008.html That's true, but Jonas raises a good point: we should certainly not add a named getter to .childNodes, say. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 17:12:36 UTC