On 8/6/2011 3:54 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/6/11, Charles Pritchard 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
On 8/6/11, Charles Pritchard 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.
>
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.
Second, re: setAttribute vs setting properties, there might be types
other
Element.create looks neat. Three thoughts:
First, I think Element.create *and* constructors like new
HTMLDivElement(attributes, children) are both useful. Element.create is good
when you have a tag name in hand, are creating unknown elements, or are
creating elements that don’t have a specific con
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13691
Art Barstow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13686
Olli Pettay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
