On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Before changing something this substantial, I'd like to have implementor
feedback regarding what the best way to address this is [...]
Given how often this comes up, I think it's worth addressing this.
Based on the discussions, it really doesn't
On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
submitButton in form.elements
Existing implementations vary on when they use
On 8/5/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
submitButton in form.elements
On 8/5/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/5/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Garrett Smith
Sorry for the lagged response,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
Sorry for the lagged response,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
Sorry for the lagged response,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On 8/4/10, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com
wrote:
Sorry for the lagged response,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30,
On 8/4/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
submitButton in form.elements
Existing implementations vary on when they use catchalls. I'd like to
see standardization for this behavior and codification so that
implementations behave similarly -- either use a catchall for a
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
submitButton in form.elements
Existing implementations vary on when they use catchalls. I'd like to
see standardization for this behavior and codification so that
On 8/4/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/4/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
submitButton in form.elements
Existing implementations vary on when they use catchalls. I'd like to
see standardization for this
On 07/30/2010 06:43 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
all array functions defined in ES5 are generic in that they work
over any array-like object.
They're guaranteed to work over any array-like native JavaScript object.
They're *not* guaranteed to work on host objects like the various node
lists.
On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:36 AM, And Clover wrote:
On 07/30/2010 06:43 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
all array functions defined in ES5 are generic in that they work
over any array-like object.
They're guaranteed to work over any array-like native JavaScript object.
They're *not* guaranteed to work
On 8/2/10, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:36 AM, And Clover wrote:
On 07/30/2010 06:43 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
all array functions defined in ES5 are generic in that they work
over any array-like object.
They're guaranteed to work over any array-like native
On Aug 2, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
I also linked to the old catchalls proposal earlier in the thread.
That is because the host objects mentioned here have a specialized
catchall behavior that isn't yet defined by any specification, so
when the code has property access with an
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri,
On 08/02/2010 09:57 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Can it be argued as to what integer index means? And what is a string index?
Good catch, that's pretty ambiguous language. Browsers implement this as
if integer index were equal to the term array index defined section
15.4 of ECMA262 (that is an
On 8/2/10, And Clover and...@doxdesk.com wrote:
On 08/02/2010 09:57 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Can it be argued as to what integer index means? And what is a string
index?
Good catch, that's pretty ambiguous language. Browsers implement this as
if integer index were equal to the term array
On 8/2/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/10, And Clover and...@doxdesk.com wrote:
On 08/02/2010 09:57 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
[...]
({}).hasOwnProperty.call(document.links, 0);
- and resulting true in IE.
However, that hasOwnProperty check does not always true for
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, David Bruant wrote:
Make that HTMLCollection (and all HTML*Collection, as a consequence of
inheritence of HTMLCollection) inherit
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
The various html collections aren't fixed length, they're not assignable, so
they can't used interchangeably with arrays at the best of times.
Array generics work on arrays that aren't fixed-length, perhaps
obviously, and I
On 7/29/10, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/10, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, David Bruant wrote:
[...]
The difficulty is getting the special behavior for [[Get]] which would
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, David Bruant wrote:
Make that HTMLCollection (and all
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, David
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, David Bruant wrote:
Make that HTMLCollection (and all HTML*Collection, as a consequence of
inheritence of HTMLCollection) inherit from the ECMAScript Array
prototype. This way, it will make
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:04 AM, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
for (var i = 0, length = collection.length; i length; i++)
// instead of:
for (var i = 0; i collection.length; i++)
Actually, the former is a problem when the nodelist is modified in the
On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:04 AM, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
for (var i = 0, length = collection.length; i length; i++)
// instead of:
for (var i = 0; i collection.length; i++)
Actually, the
On 7/29/10, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The e-mails quoted below consist of the salient points of this thread:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, David Bruant wrote:
[...]
Or we can just leave the DOM as it is and get used to calling the
equivalent of Prototype's $A() function.
Before changing
On 28/04/10 23:28, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:12 AM, James Grahamjgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 04/28/2010 10:27 AM, David Bruant wrote:
When I started this thread, my point was to define a normalized way
(through ECMAScript binding) to add array extras to array-like objects
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon gsned...@opera.com wrote:
On 28/04/10 23:28, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:12 AM, James Grahamjgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 04/28/2010 10:27 AM, David Bruant wrote:
When I started this thread, my point was to define a
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:04 AM, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
[snip]
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about just
giving them a toArray() method? This makes it clear that a collection is
not an array, but clearly
Le 28/04/2010 00:03, Garrett Smith a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:04 AM, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
[snip]
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about just
giving them a toArray()
On 27/04/10 20:23, David Bruant wrote:
Le 27/04/2010 03:54, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit :
On 26/04/10 19:50, And Clover wrote:
David Flanagan wrote:
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays,
how about just giving them a toArray() method?
I like that, as a practical and
On 04/28/2010 10:27 AM, David Bruant wrote:
When I started this thread, my point was to define a normalized way
(through ECMAScript binding) to add array extras to array-like objects
in the scope of HTML5 (HTMLCollection and inheriting interfaces).
I don't see any reason yet to try to find a
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:12 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 04/28/2010 10:27 AM, David Bruant wrote:
When I started this thread, my point was to define a normalized way
(through ECMAScript binding) to add array extras to array-like objects
in the scope of HTML5 (HTMLCollection
Le 26/04/2010 11:25, Frank Migacz a écrit :
What is the implication of denying dynamic changes to the
HTMLCollection in a CORS environment? In some variant of Comet
(or asynchronous UA polling), how can the UA implement change if it is
regularly processing inside locked control blocks?
I am
On 26/04/10 19:50, And Clover wrote:
David Flanagan wrote:
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about
just giving them a toArray() method?
I like that, as a practical and explicit (JavaScript-specific) binding.
In the longer term, what's the thinking on a more
Le 27/04/2010 03:54, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit :
On 26/04/10 19:50, And Clover wrote:
David Flanagan wrote:
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about
just giving them a toArray() method?
I like that, as a practical and explicit (JavaScript-specific) binding.
In
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
for (var i = 0, length = collection.length; i length; i++)
// instead of:
for (var i = 0; i collection.length; i++)
Actually, the former is a problem when the nodelist is modified in the
loop; it may result in collection[i] being undefined.
Even when checking the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 01:07, David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr wrote:
Le 25/04/2010 00:39, J Z a écrit :
I have thought a lot about weirdnesses that people could think about like
trying to assign a value to the
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about just
giving them a toArray() method? This makes it clear that a collection is
not an array, but clearly defines a way to obtain an array. Clever
implementors might even be able to optimize common uses-cases using some
David Flanagan wrote:
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about
just giving them a toArray() method?
I like that, as a practical and explicit (JavaScript-specific) binding.
In the longer term, what's the thinking on a more basic change:
- Require specific DOM
What is the implication of denying dynamic changes to the HTMLCollection
in a CORS environment? In some variant of Comet (or asynchronous UA
polling), how can the UA implement change if it is regularly processing
inside locked control blocks?
Please pardon my ignorance of the details.
Le 26/04/2010 10:33, Garrett Smith a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Erik Arvidssona...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 01:07, David Bruantbru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr wrote:
Le 25/04/2010 00:39, J Z a écrit :
I have thought a lot about weirdnesses that
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM, J Z kangax@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:30 PM, David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr
wrote:
Hi,
In the HTML5 status of this document section, one can read : This
specification is intended to replace (be the new version of) what was
// turning live collection into static array fixes this
Array.slice(document.getElementsByTagName('div')).forEach(function(el) {
el.parentNode.removeChild(el);
});
Where supported, though top level generics such as Array.slice are not
standard, so:
var divList =
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:33 AM, David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.frwrote:
Le 24/04/2010 22:50, J Z a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:30 PM, David Bruant
bru...@enseirb-matmeca.frwrote:
Hi,
In the HTML5 status of this document section, one can read : This
specification is
Le 25/04/2010 00:39, J Z a écrit :
I have thought a lot about weirdnesses that people could think
about like trying to assign a value to the HTMLCollection
(divs[14] = myOtherDiv), but once again, it wouldn't be more
allowed than it currently is (I have no idea of what happens
48 matches
Mail list logo
