atom feed72 messages in org.w3.public-webapiRe: ACTION-87: Selectors API
FromSent OnAttachments
38 earlier messages
Anne van KesterenMar 23, 2006 4:28 am 
Ian HicksonMar 23, 2006 2:31 pm 
Anne van KesterenMar 25, 2006 4:36 am 
Ian HicksonMar 27, 2006 3:13 pm 
Anne van KesterenApr 3, 2006 5:46 am 
Anne van KesterenApr 3, 2006 5:51 am 
lioreanMay 12, 2006 8:49 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 13, 2006 4:15 am 
lioreanMay 13, 2006 12:08 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 13, 2006 12:26 pm 
lioreanMay 13, 2006 2:40 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 14, 2006 7:20 am 
lioreanMay 14, 2006 4:22 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 15, 2006 3:15 am 
lioreanMay 16, 2006 9:29 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 17, 2006 5:18 am 
Lachlan HuntMay 17, 2006 6:19 am 
Anne van KesterenMay 17, 2006 6:30 am 
Jim LeyMay 17, 2006 6:35 am 
Lachlan HuntMay 17, 2006 7:02 am 
Robin BerjonMay 17, 2006 7:07 am 
Anne van KesterenMay 18, 2006 12:46 am 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 3:11 pm 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 3:24 pm 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 3:42 pm 
Ian HicksonMay 30, 2006 3:55 pm 
Robin BerjonMay 30, 2006 4:15 pm 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 5:56 pm 
Anne van KesterenJun 5, 2006 2:46 am 
Anne van KesterenJun 5, 2006 2:49 am 
Jonas SickingJun 5, 2006 12:31 pm 
Charles McCathieNevileJun 5, 2006 5:37 pm 
lioreanJun 5, 2006 6:16 pm 
Maciej StachowiakJun 5, 2006 10:40 pm 
Subject:Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API
From:Jonas Sicking (jon@sicking.cc)
Date:May 30, 2006 3:42:10 pm
List:org.w3.public-webapi

liorean wrote:

On 13/05/06, Anne van Kesteren <ann@opera.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:08:26 +0200, liorean <lior@gmail.com> wrote:

And StaticNodeList looks to me to be pretty array-like.

Well, if StaticNodeList looks that way NodeList would look that way too and I'd therefore suggest raising that on www-@w3.org instead. Note that I don't really want to be defining StaticNodeList in the first place.

Not quite. NodeList are, in some ways, array-like. But StaticNodeList is more array-like, for several reasons:

- First of all, I think StaticNodeList would be implemented as an actual list or hash table, not as filters used on the live node tree. This specifically because it's not supposed to be affected by changes in the node tree. This means they are considerably different under the hood.

- Second, manipulating the DOM using elements gotten from looping through a NodeList will have effects on that NodeList during the loop. Removals, reparentings, insertions etc, may affect the NodeList. StaticNodeList will not be affected by changes to the DOM. This means the different mapping functions may have very bizzarre side effects on NodeLists that they would not have on StaticNodeLists.

- Third, NodeLists being live means you cannot manually manipulate them. StaticNodeLists don't have this problem. Since they are not live, manipulation of them should not be a problem. This means array functionality such as sort, push, pop that would simply not make sense on a NodeList would make perfect sense on a StaticNodeList.

I don't want us to define a new array when ECMAScript has a perfectly good one. That is just a lot more work for everyone involved.

What we could maybe do though is to return a real ECMAScript array. I actually like this idea a lot since that'll integrate much better with scripts than a StaticNodeList would.

We could define a new top-level object like DOMArray and then let that map to different things in ECMAScript and Java.

/ Jonas