Consider not creating new indexed collection types (AccessibleNodeList)

domenic commented 8 years ago

This deserves some discussion from people like @annevk. In general we are trying to move away from these unfortunate legacy types. However, this case seems hard to do otherwise.

Some alternatives I can imagine:

Use get(0)/set(0) instead of indexed getters/setters
Have a .nodes collection which is a FrozenArray<AccessibleNode> that returns a new value each time the child list changes
Have .children be a FrozenArray<AccessibleNode> and move all manipulation methods to the AccessibleNode (probably suffixed with Child).

Neither of these are great.

annevk commented 8 years ago

What in https://a11y-api.github.io/a11y-api/spec/ returns this object?

domenic commented 8 years ago

https://a11y-api.github.io/a11y-api/spec/#relations; the structure for defining these attributes is a bit in flux (using a table instead of IDL, currently).

annevk commented 8 years ago

I see. One way to do this would be to just have methods. E.g., have children() and make it return a snapshot (sequence<AccessibleNode>). That's what we would do for new APIs.

WICG / aom

Consider not creating new indexed collection types (AccessibleNodeList) #25