7964 2009-10-18 22:48:21 +0000 Either change the "properties of an item" algorithm to be tree-order or HTMLPropertyCollection.values to be algorithm-order 2010-10-04 14:57:14 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other CLOSED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-propertynodelist-values NE P3 normal LC 1 contributor ian ian mike philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 28480 0 contributor 2009-10-18 22:48:21 +0000 Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-propertynodelist-values Comment: Either change the "properties of an item" algorithm to be tree-order or HTMLPropertyCollection.values to be algorithm-order Posted from: 79.136.63.95 28482 1 philipj 2009-10-18 22:52:06 +0000 IRC discussion logged at http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20091019#l-24 Which should be changed depends on which is easier to implement. Unless there's a hurry, perhaps we can wait for the first implementors to give feedback before deciding. 28497 2 philipj 2009-10-19 11:36:05 +0000 Of course it's PropertyNodeList.values, not HTMLPropertyCollection.values. 28736 3 ian 2009-10-21 10:10:34 +0000 Did you ever decide which was easier to implement? 28739 4 philipj 2009-10-21 10:43:56 +0000 No, I'm waiting for some kind of conclusion on the discussion started at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0581.html As it stands: Using algorithm-order requires a fair bit of complexity to avoid loops and cannot reuse general collection code which only supports document-order. Using document-order would require either first doing the above and then sorting, or first doing a more limited traversal to determine which id's should be included and after that walking the entire document. Both are more complex than any other type of collection, neither is impossible, but my guesstimate is that algorithm-order for everything (including the NodeList returned by .getItems()) would be easier, but as I said I'm waiting for the conclusion of the above discussion to see if there can't be an <itemref>-free solution. Leaving as NEEDSINFO, myself being the one who needs info. 28771 5 ian 2009-10-21 12:16:02 +0000 Reopening — I'll change the spec to be consistent, at least, and then we can change it to the other option once we know which is best. 28832 6 ian 2009-10-22 23:15:29 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: This is irrelevant now that <itemref> is replaced by itemref="", since itemref="" always gets processed in tree order.