Re: Defining a constructor for Element and friends
Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:09:03 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.dom.general,gmane.org.w3c.webapps |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CADnb78gpzObSJqFXWk1KiYCvrxF+-7BuFZWfeeuF+xEqUJhPXg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Simon Pieters <[email protected]> wrote: > If so, it seems it removes some flexibility with how HTML uses interfaces. > In particular many elements use HTMLElement and it should be possible to > change them to use a more specific interface. How do you envision to solve > this? Should we assign element-specific interfaces to all post-HTML4 > elements now, just in case? Or make new HTMLElement('ruby') create an > HTMLRubyElement? Something else? You are correct that the forward compatibility aspects of Domenic's proposal are lacking. I think we should introduce classes on a one-per-element basis. And we should probably lock down some of the generic interfaces or at least restrict them to only allow elements with dashes in their name. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/