> > I'm sure there will be more appreciative people than puzzled people if > > the functionality I propose makes it's way in. > > Quite the contrary. I remember Sam saying that he dislikes functions that > have the same name, but do different things. This is an example of that; > with ordinary nodes it uses innerHTML, but with IMG elements it changes the > value of src. >
Thanks for your input. Your point is well taken, but it's not on the "contrary". I respect Sam's wishes, but my point was that there will be more appreciative people than puzzled people; that's all. I didn't say "I think Sam will like it". > I realize that you think this is a neat idea, and I agree it is a good idea; > it just doesn't fit in the Prototype philosophy well. We believe consistency > is key and that too much magic leads to confusion of users in various edge > cases. I think users should know what they're doing, and that they should > change the value of src themselves. If the proposed functionality of the update function for IMG tags isn't accepted and if "consistency" is what the Prototype team is after, then the IMG tags should not be extended to use the update function because it doesn't apply. There is no use for innerHTML for IMG tags is there? By the way, calling the update function on IMG tags silently does nothing in IE7, but in IE6 throws an unknown runtime error at Prototype 1.6.0 line 2434 where it says "else element.innerHTML = content.stripScripts();". I will submit this as a bug report. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
