23860 2013-11-19 17:21:00 +0000 Remove getElementById() from Element 2013-11-28 21:28:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG DOM unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 annevk annevk bzbarsky erik.arvidsson mike miketaylr mtanalin waldron.rick www-dom public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 96519 0 annevk 2013-11-19 17:21:00 +0000 jQuery made it web-incompatible. We can only have it on Document and DocumentFragment. If there's potential other things we only want there we might want to introduce NonElementParentNode as group. 96520 1 bzbarsky 2013-11-19 17:27:37 +0000 Document, DocumentFragment, and SVGSVGElement, fwiw. 96521 2 annevk 2013-11-19 17:30:26 +0000 Right. I should ping www-svg@w3.org to get them to point to our definition. 96543 3 mtanalin 2013-11-19 21:39:16 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #0) > jQuery made it web-incompatible. Could you share some details? Thanks. 96545 4 bzbarsky 2013-11-19 21:41:32 +0000 jQuery 1.2.5 assumes that any node it found in the DOM that has a "getElementById" property is a Document node. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=933193#c17 96547 5 bzbarsky 2013-11-19 21:42:14 +0000 Er, I meant jQuery 1.2.6, but 1.2.5 in fact has the same code. 96606 6 waldron.rick 2013-11-20 22:24:38 +0000 Can someone point me to the relevant discussions that lead to the addition of "getElementById" to Element, thanks! 96608 7 bzbarsky 2013-11-20 22:42:33 +0000 Probably starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Jun/0207.html and then going on approximately forever. 96617 8 waldron.rick 2013-11-21 01:00:20 +0000 This is unfortunate. If it were an issue with a modern version of the library, I'd personally commit to resolving it, but unfortunately a version from 5 years ago requires a time machine and mine is in the shop. @mozillians: Is there any way to gather info on jQuery version use in Firefox? I'm willing to do evangelism, on behalf of jQuery, for any major site breakage this change may cause—if there is a way to identify breakage? Can the change be made temporarily? In a Nightly? 96618 9 waldron.rick 2013-11-21 01:05:18 +0000 I have no idea how realistic this is, but if you asked me to guess, this is pretty close to what I would say the usage is http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery/1/all 96622 10 bzbarsky 2013-11-21 03:30:45 +0000 > @mozillians: Is there any way to gather info on jQuery version use in Firefox? We can try, but the version is often in neither the url nor the actual script... Also worth asking the Blink folks if they can do this. > for any major site breakage this change may cause—if there is a way to identify > breakage? That's the problem. The symptom is that some queries will just return the wrong nodeset. What happens after that depends on what the site is doing. And no breakage today is no guarantee of anything tomorrow. :( > Can the change be made temporarily? In a Nightly? We could try; we'd have to disable our jQuery regression tests or something, since those also break with the change (which is how the problem was discovered). That has its own problems, obviously. 96649 11 waldron.rick 2013-11-21 19:24:47 +0000 (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #10) > > @mozillians: Is there any way to gather info on jQuery version use in Firefox? > > We can try, but the version is often in neither the url nor the actual > script... > jQuery.fn.jQuery is where the version is always exposed, since 1.3 (if it's not present, then "mostly" safe to assume it's pre-1.3) > Also worth asking the Blink folks if they can do this. Agreed! > > > for any major site breakage this change may cause—if there is a way to identify > > breakage? > > That's the problem. The symptom is that some queries will just return the > wrong nodeset. What happens after that depends on what the site is doing. > And no breakage today is no guarantee of anything tomorrow. :( > > > Can the change be made temporarily? In a Nightly? > > We could try; we'd have to disable our jQuery regression tests or something, > since those also break with the change (which is how the problem was > discovered). That has its own problems, obviously. Of course and I will understand if this can't happen at all. I will continue to seeking more information about version usage and will post back here. 96653 12 bzbarsky 2013-11-21 19:36:49 +0000 > jQuery.fn.jQuery is where the version is always exposed Mmm... We could try to look for that, but invoking functions of the page when they don't expect to be like that is pretty dangerous from a compat standpoint (and hence there is real infrastructure for doing it, since we never want to do it). :( 96656 13 waldron.rick 2013-11-21 19:41:38 +0000 It's a property(In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #12) > > jQuery.fn.jQuery is where the version is always exposed > > Mmm... We could try to look for that, but invoking functions of the page > when they don't expect to be like that is pretty dangerous from a compat > standpoint (and hence there is real infrastructure for doing it, since we > never want to do it). :( It's a property :) 96658 14 bzbarsky 2013-11-21 20:04:12 +0000 A property get is in general a function call, though. We don't have a sane way from the non-js-engine part of gecko to do "get this property, but only if it's a value property and if you can determine that without running any script (e.g. none of the objects are proxies)"... We could try to add a bunch of complex code to do that, I guess... 96660 15 mtanalin 2013-11-21 20:15:24 +0000 A couple of ideas about how jQuery could be precisely identified: 1. compare checksums (predefined in browser) of official JS files distributed via jQuery website with checksums of files which URL (or filename) contains "jquery" string (most likely jQuery file is typically used as is -- without modifications); 2. take URLs of jQuery hosted on popular CDN's (e.g. Google's) into account. 96661 16 waldron.rick 2013-11-21 20:23:56 +0000 (In reply to Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com from comment #15) > A couple of ideas about how jQuery could be precisely identified: > > 1. compare checksums (predefined in browser) of official JS files > distributed via jQuery website with checksums of files which URL (or > filename) contains "jquery" string (most likely jQuery file is typically > used as is -- without modifications); For statically scanning the official release of jQuery: - the minified version string looks like: `f="1.10.2"` - the source version string looks like: `core_version = "1.10.2"` But this may appear differently in older versions of jQuery. The header of jquery.js and jquery.min.js also include version: "v1.10.2" This pattern (ie. "v1.x[.x]" has been the same since jQuery 1.3 > > 2. take URLs of jQuery hosted on popular CDN's (e.g. Google's) into account. Yep, this was #1 on my list to check into :) 96665 17 erik.arvidsson 2013-11-21 21:11:40 +0000 Why was getElementById added to ParentNode in the first place? 96668 18 bzbarsky 2013-11-21 22:47:20 +0000 Erik, see comment 7. 96695 19 miketaylr 2013-11-22 16:06:46 +0000 I asked Corey of the jQuery infrastructure team to pull stats on downloads from their code.jquery.com CDN: https://gist.github.com/gnarf/471375415438802390a9. This data is "this month from one of the cdn hosts". 96828 20 annevk 2013-11-26 13:54:02 +0000 https://github.com/whatwg/dom/commit/f71d7de304e1ee25573279157dd6ce1c2aa2c4f2 96830 21 waldron.rick 2013-11-26 15:30:44 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #20) > https://github.com/whatwg/dom/commit/f71d7de304e1ee25573279157dd6ce1c2aa2c4f2 Based on the CDN request data the Mike provided above, there were only 6,952 requests for jQuery 1.2.x, out of total 34,201,901 valid requests for jQuery (0.02033%). 96850 22 mtanalin 2013-11-26 20:20:40 +0000 By the way, on syntax level, we could just add context element as optional second parameter to existing `document.getElementById()` method so that document.getElementById('example', someElement) would be equivalent to someElement.getElementById('example') Same is probably applicable to DocumentFragment. 96912 23 annevk 2013-11-28 14:10:02 +0000 Rick, if you can get Chrome to implement it on Element, or manage to change bz' mind for Firefox, I will update the specification. For now I'm happy with moving forward with just adding it to DocumentFragment (and therefore ShadowRoot). 96913 24 erik.arvidsson 2013-11-28 15:24:06 +0000 I still don't get it. Why do we want getElementById on Element? 96914 25 bzbarsky 2013-11-28 15:29:42 +0000 Erik, did you read the mailing list discussion about that exact question? 96920 26 erik.arvidsson 2013-11-28 21:28:21 +0000 (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #25) > Erik, did you read the mailing list discussion about that exact question? Yes. I didn't find a conclusion to that thread and the arguments were not very convincing. Anyway, please feel free to ignore me.