There are 6 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
question comments
general comment comments
Comment LC-1989 : No Use for childElementCount
Commenter: João Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com> (archived message ) Context: 2.5. childElementCount
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Doug Schepers
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Hi.
The Element Traversal WD define childElementCount on the Element interface.
Personally I see little use for such property by itself.
It would make much more sense to have childElements (similar to childNodes
on Node), and therefore we could use childElements.length to get the same
value as childElementCount. childElements would also be a live NodeList.
Most use cases for Element only transversal require looping NodeLists, and
if the author still has to filter nodes from these NodeLists by their
nodeType, then that beats the entire purpouse of this specification.
Thank you.
Related issues: LC-1987
(space separated ids)
WG Notes: Comment made after LC. Duplicate comment to issue raised by Daniel Glazman, no new information. Replied to commentor:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0284.html
Resolution: No change made. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
substantive comments
Comment LC-1988 : Entity References
Commenter: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> (archived message ) Context: 2. ElementTraversal interface
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Some comments on
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/ElementTraversal/publish/ElementTraversal.html
below
* As mentioned on IRC, node types should probably be capitalized. E.g.
Text instead of text.
* It's not clear from the introduction why we need childElementCount.
Having both linked list and array like traversing for the DOM is already
slightly unclear to me, but childElementCount seems to provide neither.
* I don't understand why 1.1 is marked as informative and section 1. is
not.
* 2. talks about implementing methods where you mean attributes.
* In 2. ElementTraversal is not marked up.
* I don't understand "A User Agent may implement similar interfaces in
other specifications, but such implementation is not required for
conformance to this specification, if the User Agent is designed for a
minimal code footprint." I suggest dropping this sentence.
* It's not clear to me how "For the purpose of ElementTraversal, an entity
reference node which represents an element must be treated as an element
node." works. Does this mean that an EntityReference node also implements
this interface? I suggest dropping this sentence or stating that this
interface assumes that all entities are normalized away or something. (We
should really get rid of syntactic sugar in the DOM in due course...)
* "Accessing this attribute of an element must return a reference to the
first child node of that element which is of nodeType 1, as an Element
object." I don't think ", as an Element object." makes much sense in this
sentence. (Likewise for similar sentences.)
* I don't think the IDL should be in the appendix. It's a useful overview
of what the draft defines. I would also like to see pointers from the IDL
bits to their definitions. As we've done in the XMLHttpRequest
specification.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/5
Spec was changed to satisfy comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0279.html
Björn Höhrmann was not satisfied by the wording, but offered no solution that would be preferable:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0344.html
Commentor agreed to resolution on IRC: "anyways, just tell the benevolant dictator I'm ok with it"
Resolution: New wording hopefully satisfies both commentors:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0286.html (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-1987 : Element Nodelist
Commenter: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> (archived message ) Context: 2.5. childElementCount
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Doug Schepers
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Hi,
1. congrats for this spec, I love it ; I can't count how many times in
page or chrome script I am filtering out nodes that are not element
nodes.
2. the ElementTraversal interface has a |childElementCount| attribute
but misses access to an individual childElement based on its index.
That would be really useful. Two solutions here :
a. you remove the childElementCount attribute in favor of a
readonly attribute NodeList childElements;
and that NodeList has all we need
b. you add
Node item(in unsigned long index);
but that is not really consistent with the existing way of
querying list of nodes.
My very strong preference goes to solution a.
Best,
</Daniel>
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/6
Resolution: After much conversation and review of existing implementations, we resolved not to add a nodelist to Element Traversal, but to create a separate spec to add that and similar features. Commentor was satisfied:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0396.html (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-1986 : Property vs Attribute
Commenter: KUROSAWA, Takeshi <taken.spc@gmail.com> (archived message ) Context: B. ECMAScript Language Binding
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Doug Schepers
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Dear Web API WG,
Element Traversal Spec uses "attribute" word at ECMAScript Language Biding[1].
> firstElementChild
> This read-only attribute is of type Element.
But it is prefered to use "property" rather than "attribute" in
ECMAScript world. Other DOM Specs use "property" at ECMAScript
Language Binding (ex. DOM Level 1[2], ...).
The biding should be something like below:
firstElementChild
This read-only property is of type Element.
...
childElementCount
This read-only property is of type Number.
Regards
1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ElementTraversal-20080303/#ecmascript-bindings
2: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/ecma-script-language-binding.html
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: Spec changed in response to comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Mar/0095.html (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
editorial comments
Comment LC-1990 : Editorial-Dumitriu
Commenter: Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu@xwiki.com> (archived message ) Context: Document as a whole
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Doug Schepers
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Hello,
Some quick comments on the Element Traversal Last Call Working Draft.
These attributes must be read only, but this is only stated in the
bindings. Shouldn't there be something about this in Section 2?
2.5: typo: "must +be+ counted"
3.2: Is window.innerWidth in any spec? As far as I know, no, so is it
good to use it?
3.2: The way the position is computed is wrong. It should either be:
var eachWidth = window.innerWidth / (elCount + 1);
instead of
var eachWidth = window.innerWidth / elCount;
if the intention is to leave a space between the window margin and the
elements, or:
var nextPos = 0;
instead of
var nextPos = eachWidth/2;
if the intention is to leave no space. Also, perhaps the width should
also be set?
childEl.style.setProperty( 'width', eachWidth + 'px', '' );
B: typo: "Element has -the- all the attributes"
B: Shouldn't the "In a User Agent..." text be placed outside the "code"
div? In its current position it looks bad all bold, and it also causes:
B: Repetition:
"...has the attributes defined below.
The Element object has the following attributes:"
Thanks,
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: All comments incoporated, with minor exception of non-normative "innerWidth" example:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0285.html
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Add a comment .