Make arguments to Element methods non-optional

Make arguments to Element methods non-optional

http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-element

Only touch methods defined by the above spec.

The added missing-arguments test passes in Firefox Nightly, and
Opera 12.16. IE11 Release Preview passes all except getAttribute,
removeAttribute and setAttribute, where it returns null/undefined
instead of throwing.

Taken together, this could break IE- and Chrome-only content.

This re-lands https://codereview.chromium.org/98543009 after having
landed https://codereview.chromium.org/111833002/ in Chromium.

BUG=325922
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=163705

[philipj_slow, 2013-12-11 09:28:03]

Already reviewed in https://codereview.chromium.org/98543009

Jochen, what's the standard procedure for re-landing patches? I've seen
different things in git log, including reverting the revert...

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2013-12-11 11:43:59]

On 2013/12/11 09:28:03, philipj wrote:
> Already reviewed in https://codereview.chromium.org/98543009
> 
> Jochen, what's the standard procedure for re-landing patches? I've seen
> different things in git log, including reverting the revert...

If it's a plain revert, I usually revert the revert.

Otherwise, I'd upload the original version as patchset 1, and the new version as
patchset 2, so reviewers can quickly see what changed and get a review for the
diff.

anyway, lgtm

[philipj_slow, 2013-12-11 12:05:44]

On 2013/12/11 11:43:59, jochen wrote:
> On 2013/12/11 09:28:03, philipj wrote:
> > Already reviewed in https://codereview.chromium.org/98543009
> > 
> > Jochen, what's the standard procedure for re-landing patches? I've seen
> > different things in git log, including reverting the revert...
> 
> If it's a plain revert, I usually revert the revert.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd upload the original version as patchset 1, and the new version
as
> patchset 2, so reviewers can quickly see what changed and get a review for the
> diff.
> 
> anyway, lgtm

OK, in this case it was a clean cherry-pick of the original commit. I'll follow
your method for future re-landings.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-11 12:06:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/philipj@opera.com/105883012/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-11 13:34:58]

Change committed as 163705

[eseidel, 2013-12-21 02:13:46]

A revert of this CL has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/120373003/ by eseidel@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: Broken twitter.  Reverting is easy, so doing that
first, can land a more surgical fix..