- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:23:17 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, www-dom@w3.org
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:12:06 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> >> On 2/18/12 3:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > > Well childNodes as you pointed out is a collection of nodes, not a > collection of elements. I'm not sure it makes sense to expose element > collections in wildly different ways, unless we want to discourage > particular accessors. Exposing it on more collections than needed will make it much harder to deprecate the named getter. Until someone has measured (which I believe both mozilla and google has the ability to do these days) I think it's too early to say that we can't deprecate. For example I'd hate it if we add named getters to the return value of .querySelectorAll or .findAll. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 23:24:14 UTC