On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:00:25 +0000, John-Mark Bell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:45:15AM +0000, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > > > > > +dom_exception dom_html_h_r_element_get_no_shade( > > > + dom_html_h_r_element *ele, bool *no_shade); > > > > The no_shade is good, but I'm slightly confused as to why you're putting > > dom_html_h_r_element rather than dom_html_hr_element -- does our conversion > > algorithm really expect it this way? > > > > [snip rest] > > > > If the test suite really does expect dom_html_h_r_element then I guess I can > > accept this patch for now, but overall, I think I'd prefer it if it could be > > dom_html_hr_element -- Perhaps John Mark will have some useful input here? > > I don't, insofar as I expected the same thing you did! Having looked, > however, I think all that is needed here is to add > HTMLHRElement => "dom_html_hr_element" to the special_prefix map in > DOMTSHandler.pm.
Excellent, then I ask that this patch series be augmented with this change so that we get dom_html_hr_element please Rupinder. D. -- Daniel Silverstone http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ PGP mail accepted and encouraged. Key Id: 3CCE BABE 206C 3B69
