lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Mon Sep 5 02:52:25 PDT 2005
Jim Ley wrote:
> On 9/5/05, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote:
>>No, as already demonstrated, #2 does return matches in some cases.
> Surely that's just an implementation bug? rather than indicative of
> any underlying problem in the spec.
Yes, it was a bug, but I didn't think the spec was very clear on how to
handle the issue.
> The ElementClassName file :
> className = className.replace(/^\s*([^\s]*)\s*$/, "$1")
> doesn't enforce the classnames have no spaces in them and results it
> in continuing to test the className attributes with a regexp
> containing the space.
> a quick untested fix would I think be:
> className = className.match(/^\s*(\S+)\s*$/) ?
> className.replace(/^\s*(\S+)\s*$/,"$1") : "";
That seems to work well.
> (also using \S rather than [^\s], but that's purely style of course)
Thanks, I didn't know about that syntax.
> I think it is defined in the spec, it's erroneous, and your
> implementation is just broken as above, I'd quite like it to be
> defined as 3,
Yes, I guess, if it is erroneous, then #3 does make the most sense.
> mainly because a DOM binding with optional parameters
> isn't language independant, and if it's a ECMAScript tied DOM, then
> the DOM needs to be a lot more ECMAScript like.
I may not be understanding what you mean, but if optional parameters
aren't language independant, shouldn't it be defined in a more language
independant way, so that any non-ECMAScript languages can still
More information about the whatwg