ElementTraversal progress?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ElementTraversal progress?

Jonas Sicking-2

Hi WebAPI fans!

I wanted to implement the ElementTraversal spec for the next release of
firefox (after FF3). However last I heard there was still an outstanding
issue of if we wanted to have .childElementCount unsigned long or if we
wanted a .childElements NodeList.

It would be great to have this resolved pretty soon. The development
cycle for our next release is quite short so if we want to add
ElementTraversal to the release we would ideally like to see it more
stable pretty soon.

As before I'm still of the opinion that a .childElements NodeList would
be a better solution. While I agree that it can be more complex to
implement, I still think that the value vs. cost ratio still is quite good.

Best Regards,
Jonas Sicking

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ElementTraversal progress?

Charles McCathieNevile-2

On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:05:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi WebAPI fans!

WebAPI! WebAPI! WebAPI!

(Sorry)

> I wanted to implement the ElementTraversal spec for the next release of  
> firefox (after FF3). However last I heard there was still an outstanding  
> issue of if we wanted to have .childElementCount unsigned long or if we  
> wanted a .childElements NodeList.

I guess Doug will pipe up soon, but as I understand things from him he  
thinks it makes sense to leave the spec as is. Opera, Ikivo and BitFlash  
are known to have implementations that are believed to be conformant to  
the current spec.

> It would be great to have this resolved pretty soon. The development  
> cycle for our next release is quite short so if we want to add  
> ElementTraversal to the release we would ideally like to see it more  
> stable pretty soon.
>
> As before I'm still of the opinion that a .childElements NodeList would  
> be a better solution. While I agree that it can be more complex to  
> implement, I still think that the value vs. cost ratio still is quite  
> good.

One of the issues involved in a new, more complicated solution is  
precisely the one of stabilising the spec relatively quickly. Personally I  
think it seems better to go with what we have right now, and look at  
adding more in a seperate piece of work, so as to stabilise and finish the  
spec...

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ElementTraversal progress?

Jonas Sicking-2

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:05:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi WebAPI fans!
>
> WebAPI! WebAPI! WebAPI!
>
> (Sorry)
>
>> I wanted to implement the ElementTraversal spec for the next release
>> of firefox (after FF3). However last I heard there was still an
>> outstanding issue of if we wanted to have .childElementCount unsigned
>> long or if we wanted a .childElements NodeList.
>
> I guess Doug will pipe up soon, but as I understand things from him he
> thinks it makes sense to leave the spec as is. Opera, Ikivo and BitFlash
> are known to have implementations that are believed to be conformant to
> the current spec.
>
>> It would be great to have this resolved pretty soon. The development
>> cycle for our next release is quite short so if we want to add
>> ElementTraversal to the release we would ideally like to see it more
>> stable pretty soon.
>>
>> As before I'm still of the opinion that a .childElements NodeList
>> would be a better solution. While I agree that it can be more complex
>> to implement, I still think that the value vs. cost ratio still is
>> quite good.
>
> One of the issues involved in a new, more complicated solution is
> precisely the one of stabilising the spec relatively quickly. Personally
> I think it seems better to go with what we have right now, and look at
> adding more in a seperate piece of work, so as to stabilise and finish
> the spec...

I guess I would bow down to the majority vote here, though I really
don't understand the "more complicated" argument as pretty much anything
else we're talking about in this WG is more complicated than this feature.

In mozilla we would actually even implement the .childElementCount
property by keeping a hidden childNodes list internally. But that might
be specific to the mozilla implementation.

/ Jonas