On 8/6/2011 3:54 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/6/11, Charles Pritchard<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/6/2011 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
Element.create looks neat. Three thoughts:
...
Let me briefly reiterate that I think we want *both* Element.create
and constructors; they have complementary uses.
I agree.
And for no reason, it seems.
Dominic stated several reasons.
(Element.create('div') instanceof HTMLDivElement);
Second, re: setAttribute vs setting properties, there might be types
other than functions we want to not treat as strings; for example if a
UA implements CSSOM it might be nice to be able to set a style without
having to serialize and reparse the CSSStyleDeclaration.
Can we spec whether something in the attributes hash is set via
setAttribute or via setting a property based on the IDL for that element?
How about .attributes as another reserved word:
Element.create('div', { attributes: { 'class': 'foo'} });
Element.create('div', { attributes: [ 'class','foo','class','bar'] }
).attr({textContent: 'Bar class'});
textContent is a property, not an attribute. Properties vs attributes
was already explained in this thread.
[...]
I've stated in prior threads, that unless the word is aria-* or data-*,
properties are set on the element.
Here, I've added attributes as another reserved word, for setting
attributes.
The proposed attr() method sets properties, as create() does.
Element.create('div',{className: 'class'}).attr({className: 'class ',
attributes: {'class': 'class'}).getAttribute('class') == 'class';
