Re: [DOM4] Question about using sequence v.s., NodeList for
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:59:48 +0100, Vincent Hardy wrote: b. Use sequence everywhere except where T=Node, in which case we would use NodeList. This is consistent with DOM4 and inconsistent within the spec. I think this is fine, but you should use Range[] and not sequence. You cannot use sequence for attributes. Do you have a pointer to the specification by the way? Kind of curious why you want to expose a list of Range objects. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [DOM4] Question about using sequence v.s., NodeList for
On Mar 16, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:59:48 +0100, Vincent Hardy
mailto:vha...@adobe.com>> wrote:
b. Use sequence everywhere except where T=Node, in which case we
would use NodeList. This is consistent with DOM4 and inconsistent within
the spec.
I think this is fine, but you should use Range[] and not sequence.
You cannot use sequence for attributes. Do you have a pointer to the
specification by the way? Kind of curious why you want to expose a list of
Range objects.
Hi Anne,
The proposal is at http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-regions/css-om. The proposed
modifications are not in the specification yet, they need more discussions.
The proposal is to use sequence as returned values from functions, not
as attribute values, which is why I went with sequence and not T[] (I had a
brief exchange with Cameron about this).
what I proposed as option b. in my message would be:
interface Region {
readonly attribute DOMString flowConsumed;
sequence getRegionFlowRanges(); // Returns a static list, new array
returned on each call
};
interface NamedFlow {
readonly attribute DOMString name;
readonly attribute boolean overflow;
sequence getRegions(); // Returns a static list, new array returned
on each call
NodeList getContentNodes(); // Returns a static list, new array returned on
each call
sequence getRegionsByContentNode(Node node); // idem
};
The alternate options on the page are:
Option I
interface Region {
readonly attribute DOMString flowConsumed;
sequence getRegionFlowRanges();
};
interface NamedFlow {
readonly attribute DOMString name;
readonly attribute boolean overflow;
sequence getRegions();
sequence getContentNodes();
sequence getRegionsByContentNode(Node node);
};
Or: Option II
[ArrayClass]
interface RangeList {
getter Range? item(unsigned long index);
readonly attribute unsigned long length;
};
[ArrayClass]
interface RegionList {
getter Region? item(unsigned long index);
readonly attribute unsigned long length;
};
interface Region {
readonly attribute DOMString flowConsumed;
RangeList getRegionFlowRanges();
};
interface NamedFlow {
readonly attribute DOMString name;
readonly attribute boolean overflow;
RegionList getRegions();
NodeList getContentNodes();
RegionList getRegionsByContentNode(Node node);
};
The reason we are using an array of ranges as opposed to a single Range object
is that the named flow is made of a a list of elements that do not share a
common parent. So for example, we can have a sequence of elemA and then elemB
in the named flow, but they do not have the same parent. When they are laid out
across regions, say region1 and region2, we may get all of elemA in region1 and
some of elemB. In that case, the ranges for region1 would be:
- first range that encompasses all of elemA
- second range that encompasses some of elemB
and for region2:
- range that encompasses the remainder of elemB (i.e, the start container and
offset on this range are the same as the end container and end offset on the
last range in region1).
Does that answer your question?
Vincent
Re: [DOM4] Question about using sequence v.s., NodeList for
The main reason to keep NodeList is because we'd like to add other APIs to
NodeList in the future that operate on the Nodes in the list (e.g. remove).
I don't really see use-cases for wanting a similar thing with the other
cases here, so I think sticking with arrays of Ranges and Regions is fine.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:59:48 +0100, Vincent Hardy
> wrote:
>
> b. Use sequence everywhere except where T=Node, in which case we
>
> would use NodeList. This is consistent with DOM4 and inconsistent within
>
> the spec.
>
>
> I think this is fine, but you should use Range[] and not sequence.
> You cannot use sequence for attributes. Do you have a pointer to the
> specification by the way? Kind of curious why you want to expose a list of
>
> Range objects.
>
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> The proposal is at http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-regions/css-om. The
> proposed modifications are not in the specification yet, they need more
> discussions.
>
> The proposal is to use sequence as returned values from functions,
> not as attribute values, which is why I went with sequence and not T[]
> (I had a brief exchange with Cameron about this).
>
> what I proposed as option b. in my message would be:
>
> interface Region {
> readonly attribute DOMString flowConsumed;
> sequence getRegionFlowRanges(); // Returns a static list, new
> array returned on each call
> };
>
> interface NamedFlow {
> readonly attribute DOMString name;
> readonly attribute boolean overflow;
>
> sequence getRegions(); // Returns a static list, new array
> returned on each call
> NodeList getContentNodes(); // Returns a static list, new array returned on
> each call
> sequence getRegionsByContentNode(Node node); // idem
> };
>
>
> The alternate options on the page are:
>
> *Option I*
>
>
> interface Region {
> readonly attribute DOMString flowConsumed;
> sequence getRegionFlowRanges();
> };
>
>
> interface NamedFlow {
> readonly attribute DOMString name;
> readonly attribute boolean overflow;
>
> sequence getRegions();
> sequence getContentNodes();
> sequence getRegionsByContentNode(Node node);
> };
>
>
> Or: *Option II*
>
>
> [ArrayClass]
> interface RangeList {
> getter Range? item(unsigned long index);
> readonly attribute unsigned long length;
> };
>
> [ArrayClass]
> interface RegionList {
> getter Region? item(unsigned long index);
> readonly attribute unsigned long length;
> };
>
> interface Region {
> readonly attribute DOMString flowConsumed;
> RangeList getRegionFlowRanges();
> };
>
> interface NamedFlow {
> readonly attribute DOMString name;
> readonly attribute boolean overflow;
>
> RegionList getRegions();
> NodeList getContentNodes();
> RegionList getRegionsByContentNode(Node node);
> };
>
> The reason we are using an array of ranges as opposed to a single Range
> object is that the named flow is made of a a list of elements that do not
> share a common parent. So for example, we can have a sequence of elemA and
> then elemB in the named flow, but they do not have the same parent. When
> they are laid out across regions, say region1 and region2, we may get all
> of elemA in region1 and some of elemB. In that case, the ranges for region1
> would be:
>
> - first range that encompasses all of elemA
> - second range that encompasses some of elemB
>
> and for region2:
>
> - range that encompasses the remainder of elemB (i.e, the start container
> and offset on this range are the same as the end container and end offset
> on the last range in region1).
>
> Does that answer your question?
> Vincent
>
>
>
Re: [DOM4] NodeList should be deprecated
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:03:23 +0100, Cameron McCormack > wrote: > >> Anne van Kesteren: >> >>> Wasn't there a compatibility constrain with doing that? >>> >> >> I don't remember -- the only difference it would make is that >> Object.getPrototypeOf(**NodeList.prototype) == Array.prototype. >> > > Okay, annotated NodeList with [ArrayClass]. What about HTMLCollection? > Should I add it there too? Could you take a look at NodeList and > HTMLCollection for accuracy? > Should HTMLCollection inherit from NodeList? All the APIs I can think of that you'd want to add to NodeList you'd want on HTMLCollection as well. To be clear, array methods that modify the array in-place would silently do nothing because the properties on NodeLists/HTMLCollections are read-only. But you'd be able to use things like forEach and filter.
Re: [DOM4] NodeList should be deprecated
Anne van Kesteren: > Okay, annotated NodeList with [ArrayClass]. What about HTMLCollection? Should I add it there too? Could you take a look at NodeList and HTMLCollection for accuracy? It is probably not feasible to add to HTMLCollection, because it has a named property getter which is not [OverrideBuiltins]. That means that all the new properties on the prototype like "concat", "push", etc. would begin to shadow any named elements on the collection.
Re: [DOM4] NodeList should be deprecated
Cameron McCormack: > It is probably not feasible to add to
HTMLCollection, because it has a
named property getter which is not [OverrideBuiltins]. That means that
all the new properties on the prototype like "concat", "push", etc.
would begin to shadow any named elements on the collection.
On the other hand it would be great to be able to do things like:
document.getElementsByTagName("span")
.map(function(x) { return x.clientWidth });
:(
I am a bit reluctant to special case the visibility of named properties
on HTMLCollection to be something other than the current
[OverrideBuiltins] or non-[OverrideBuiltins] behaviour.
