And remove SVGSVGElement.prototype.getElementById while you're at it, if you have that.
Are we really calling this thing ParentNode? That is a terrible name.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are we really calling this thing ParentNode? That is a terrible name.
Indeed! I've filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23698 to that end.
Oops, editors closed the bug :(
Oh well, we'll never use DOM4 naming then.
Note that Gecko exposes .children etc. on DocumentFragment.
Chris, didn't you do this already?
I have just compared our implementation with the specification and it does appear that:
- Our ParentNode.idl matches the DOM spec at https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#parentnode
- Document, DocumentFragment and Element implement ParentNode
So I think we can close this bug.
Also not that actual naming we use does not matter that much since the 'ParentNode' naming is not web-exposed. That said, there are advantages to matching the naming in the spec.