Re: ISSUE-29: how is uri parameter of the open() method resolved
Boris Zbarsky wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: What we resolved for ISSUE-29 is that the XHR object has an intrinsic property holding Window.document.baseURI from the Window it was created in. How is that defined? Say if I do: var xmlHttp = new window.opener.XMLHttpRequest(); which window was the request created in? The intrinsic property will have the value of window.opener.document.baseURI. I.e. the window whose constructor is used is the window which is used to grab the baseuri. I assume that there are testcases somewhere checking what IE does in these various circumstances? Yes, we used the testcase attached to http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED] / Jonas
Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API
liorean wrote: On 13/05/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:08:26 +0200, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And StaticNodeList looks to me to be pretty array-like. Well, if StaticNodeList looks that way NodeList would look that way too and I'd therefore suggest raising that on [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead. Note that I don't really want to be defining StaticNodeList in the first place. Not quite. NodeList are, in some ways, array-like. But StaticNodeList is more array-like, for several reasons: - First of all, I think StaticNodeList would be implemented as an actual list or hash table, not as filters used on the live node tree. This specifically because it's not supposed to be affected by changes in the node tree. This means they are considerably different under the hood. - Second, manipulating the DOM using elements gotten from looping through a NodeList will have effects on that NodeList during the loop. Removals, reparentings, insertions etc, may affect the NodeList. StaticNodeList will not be affected by changes to the DOM. This means the different mapping functions may have very bizzarre side effects on NodeLists that they would not have on StaticNodeLists. - Third, NodeLists being live means you cannot manually manipulate them. StaticNodeLists don't have this problem. Since they are not live, manipulation of them should not be a problem. This means array functionality such as sort, push, pop that would simply not make sense on a NodeList would make perfect sense on a StaticNodeList. I don't want us to define a new array when ECMAScript has a perfectly good one. That is just a lot more work for everyone involved. What we could maybe do though is to return a real ECMAScript array. I actually like this idea a lot since that'll integrate much better with scripts than a StaticNodeList would. We could define a new top-level object like DOMArray and then let that map to different things in ECMAScript and Java. / Jonas
Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Jonas Sicking wrote: - Third, NodeLists being live means you cannot manually manipulate them. StaticNodeLists don't have this problem. Since they are not live, manipulation of them should not be a problem. This means array functionality such as sort, push, pop that would simply not make sense on a NodeList would make perfect sense on a StaticNodeList. I don't want us to define a new array when ECMAScript has a perfectly good one. That is just a lot more work for everyone involved. What we could maybe do though is to return a real ECMAScript array. I actually like this idea a lot since that'll integrate much better with scripts than a StaticNodeList would. That makes a lot of sense. I support this. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API
On May 30, 2006, at 15:55, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 30 May 2006, Jonas Sicking wrote: What we could maybe do though is to return a real ECMAScript array. I actually like this idea a lot since that'll integrate much better with scripts than a StaticNodeList would. That makes a lot of sense. I support this. Heck yeah. Jonas: I think that would constitute a very good thing to put in the Bindings 4 DOM document. Of course, it's mean of me to suggest this means you have a new action item, but you can only blame yourself for having good ideas. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API
Robin Berjon wrote: On May 30, 2006, at 15:55, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 30 May 2006, Jonas Sicking wrote: What we could maybe do though is to return a real ECMAScript array. I actually like this idea a lot since that'll integrate much better with scripts than a StaticNodeList would. That makes a lot of sense. I support this. Heck yeah. Jonas: I think that would constitute a very good thing to put in the Bindings 4 DOM document. Of course, it's mean of me to suggest this means you have a new action item, but you can only blame yourself for having good ideas. Yeah, that makes sense. I raised an action on me. / Jonas
