Le 27/04/2010 03:54, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit :
On 26/04/10 19:50, And Clover wrote:
David Flanagan wrote:
Rather that trying to make DOM collections feel like arrays, how about
just giving them a toArray() method?
I like that, as a practical and explicit (JavaScript-specific) binding.
In the longer term, what's the thinking on a more basic change:
- Require specific DOM interfaces like NodeList, HTMLCollection, Element
etc. to be available for prototype monkey-patching under their interface
names as properties of `window`?
Then we wouldn't have to worry about what Array-like methods need to be
provided on HTMLCollection, because application and framework authors
could choose whichever they liked to prototype in.
IE8/Moz/Op/Saf/Chr already do this to a significant extent, but there's
no standard that says they have to. It would allow DOM extension to be
put on a much less shaky footing than the messy hack Prototype 1.x uses.
Is this something that's a reasonable requirement for browsers in
future?
HTML5 through WebIDL and its ECMAScript binding already does require
this.
I can see where interfaces are expected to be exposed
([NamedConstructor]) in the global object, but I don't see where it is
said that the prototype of the constructor must be extensible. I don't
even see this in the section which is the relevent one in my opinion
(Interface prototype object)
I have read this version of WebIDL : http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/
David
