[whatwg] HTML 5 : Misconceptions Documented
dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 13:37:24 PDT 2008
On 8/11/08, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to some things I was writing
about. I think these are important things that deserve attention, too.
If it's not too much to ask, have you considered inline style response?
I tried to restore posting order, but since you are using Outlook, it
was not effectively possible.
> Neither the expression 'form.elements.$name' nor its expanded form
> 'form.elements["$name"]' is supposed to be defined even if $name is an
> identifier of an embedded control. The correct way to address the control
> is 'form.elements("$name")',
Can you cite a reference for this?
AFAIK, this is an IE feature that was copied.
> which is a shorthand notation for
No, that is wrong. Doubly wrong, I think. The item method retrieves a
node by ordinal index (based on depth-first traversal).
now if you had wrote:-
That would at least be partially correct. If namedItem is what you
meant, then please supply a reference to back up your claim. I do not
think the claim:
| The correct way to address the control is 'form.elements("$name")'
is true and correct. I think it's an MSIE invention that other
> These two should not be confused.
> Therefore, the bug in Opera is not about shadowing the length property but
> about defining the corresponding property at all (in particular,
> 'form.elements.ell' should be null no matter what).
Are you referring to the example I supplied?
> This could potentially be described in the EcmaScript bindings. But it
> would be a good idea to explore some edge cases. Particularly, if the
> case was the order of definition of properties: One such case would be
> an HTMLCollection with an element named "length". In that case, the
> readonly "length" property would have to be the actual length of the
> collection; the value should not be replaced with an element of that
> <form><input name="length"></form>
> Opera9: [object HTMLInputElement] <-- BUG
> FF3: 1
> Saf3: 1
There was no element in my example with a id or name 'ell', so I would
have to say that form.elements.ell would be undefined, not null.
Where is this - ell - coming from?
> OTOH, the expression 'form.length' is a perfect equivalent for
> 'form.elements("length")', provided a control with such a name is contained.
form.elements has a readonly property named length.
That property can't be changed (legally) just because a parse event
found an element named (or id'd) "length".
The length property of a form - form.length - refers to:
> Have you reported this to Opera technical support?
> I can see no harm in principle in assigning a value to 'form.length' because
> length is not an intrinsic property the form object.
Chris, I have stated at least twice prior to this email that an
HTMLCollection has a readonly length property.
| length of type unsigned long, readonly
| This attribute specifies the length or size of the list.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Garrett Smith
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 2:06 AM
> To: WHATWG List
> Cc: Maciej Stachowiak
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML 5 : Misconceptions Documented
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> I'd like to put this back on the list, and it doesn't contain anything
> personal, so I'm taking the liberty here.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "in the binding".
> I meant the EcmaScript binding.
> > Do you mean in Web IDL's
> > definition of how to map Web IDL interfaces to the ECMAScript language, or
> > one-off in the HTML5 spec for every interface this applies to?
> Narrowing the scope in the interest of not creating bugs seems like a
> very good idea.
> Another consideration would be a form element with an attribute
> "length". That would be a problem as neither the attribute, nor the
> Netscape 4 DOM "named items" are specified as "readonly". So that's
> one reason for not specifying the Netscape 4 DOM and for removing that
> example from WF 2.0
More information about the whatwg