Rename HTMLElement::form() to formOwner().

Rename HTMLElement::form() to formOwner().

To make the correspondence to the underlying concept clearer, rename
form() as formOwner(). It intending to implement the spec's notion of
"form owner",

 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#form-owner

As part of this, as HTMLLegendElement.form implements its own notion
of 'form',

  http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-legend-form

a separate form() accessor has been introduced (rather
than co-opt formOwner().)

R=tkent@chromium.org
BUG=324828
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=163523

[sof, 2013-12-10 08:23:41]

Please take a look when you have a moment.

(The renaming part of the https://codereview.chromium.org/107183004/ CL. Will
retire/drop it.)

[tkent, 2013-12-10 08:31:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
Why do you remove it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:45: virtual HTMLFormElement* virtualForm()
const OVERRIDE;
Why do you remove it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:37: HTMLFormElement* form() const;
Why do you add it?

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLObjectEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLObjectElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLObjectEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLObjectElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const { return
FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
Why do you remove it?

[sof, 2013-12-10 08:35:29]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> Why do you remove it?

FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:45: virtual HTMLFormElement* virtualForm()
const OVERRIDE;
On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> Why do you remove it?

Now unused.

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:37: HTMLFormElement* form() const;
On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> Why do you add it?

The legend element has its own notion of 'form',

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-legend-form


doesn't make sense to have that use formOwner(); it isn't.

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLObjectEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLObjectElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLObjectEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLObjectElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const { return
FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> Why do you remove it?

FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it directly.

[tkent, 2013-12-10 08:49:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > Why do you remove it?
> 
> FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.

form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:37: HTMLFormElement* form() const;
On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > Why do you add it?
> 
> The legend element has its own notion of 'form',
> 
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-legend-form
> 
> 
> doesn't make sense to have that use formOwner(); it isn't.

So, this CL is not a simple renaming.  The CL description should mention this.

[sof, 2013-12-10 08:53:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > Why do you remove it?
> > 
> > FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.
> 
> form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
> FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.
> 

Which IDL function/attribute "form" are you referring to?

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:37: HTMLFormElement* form() const;
On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > Why do you add it?
> > 
> > The legend element has its own notion of 'form',
> > 
> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-legend-form
> > 
> > 
> > doesn't make sense to have that use formOwner(); it isn't.
> 
> So, this CL is not a simple renaming.  The CL description should mention this.

It introduces "form owner" where it makes sense, yes.

[sof, 2013-12-10 08:56:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:53:57, sof wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > > Why do you remove it?
> > > 
> > > FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.
> > 
> > form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
> > FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.
> > 
> 
> Which IDL function/attribute "form" are you referring to?

(Please also notice the virtualForm() overloads of the FormAssociatedElement
subclasses.)

[tkent, 2013-12-10 08:59:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:53:57, sof wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > > Why do you remove it?
> > > 
> > > FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.
> > 
> > form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
> > FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.
> > 
> 
> Which IDL function/attribute "form" are you referring to?

Oops, it's not an IDL function.  I meant 'form' IDL attributes of button,
fieldset, input, keygen,  output, select, and textarea.

[sof, 2013-12-10 09:03:00]

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 08:59:01, tkent wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:53:57, sof wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> > > On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > > > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > > > Why do you remove it?
> > > > 
> > > > FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.
> > > 
> > > form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
> > > FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.
> > > 
> > 
> > Which IDL function/attribute "form" are you referring to?
> 
> Oops, it's not an IDL function.  I meant 'form' IDL attributes of button,
> fieldset, input, keygen,  output, select, and textarea.

Same functionality/behavior is provided, see
HTMLFormControlElement::virtualForm()

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
File Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLLegendEl...
Source/core/html/HTMLLegendElement.h:37: HTMLFormElement* form() const;
On 2013/12/10 08:53:57, sof wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > > Why do you add it?
> > > 
> > > The legend element has its own notion of 'form',
> > > 
> > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-legend-form
> > > 
> > > 
> > > doesn't make sense to have that use formOwner(); it isn't.
> > 
> > So, this CL is not a simple renaming.  The CL description should mention
this.
> 
> It introduces "form owner" where it makes sense, yes.

Done.

[tkent, 2013-12-10 09:07:50]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
On 2013/12/10 09:03:01, sof wrote:
> On 2013/12/10 08:59:01, tkent wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:53:57, sof wrote:
> > > On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> > > > On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > > > > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > > > > Why do you remove it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.
> > > > 
> > > > form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
> > > > FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Which IDL function/attribute "form" are you referring to?
> > 
> > Oops, it's not an IDL function.  I meant 'form' IDL attributes of button,
> > fieldset, input, keygen,  output, select, and textarea.
> 
> Same functionality/behavior is provided, see
> HTMLFormControlElement::virtualForm()

ok, I understand.

I expect only literal renaming for a CL of which description says it renames
something. Such changes need explanation.

[sof, 2013-12-10 09:14:22]

On 2013/12/10 09:07:50, tkent wrote:
> lgtm
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
> File Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/93723003/diff/1/Source/core/html/HTMLFormCont...
> Source/core/html/HTMLFormControlElement.h:46: HTMLFormElement* form() const {
> return FormAssociatedElement::form(); }
> On 2013/12/10 09:03:01, sof wrote:
> > On 2013/12/10 08:59:01, tkent wrote:
> > > On 2013/12/10 08:53:57, sof wrote:
> > > > On 2013/12/10 08:49:49, tkent wrote:
> > > > > On 2013/12/10 08:35:29, sof wrote:
> > > > > > On 2013/12/10 08:31:28, tkent wrote:
> > > > > > > Why do you remove it?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FormAssociatedElement::form() implements it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > form() IDL function uses HTMLElement::formOwner() instead of
> > > > > FormAssociatedElement::form().  This looks a behavior change.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Which IDL function/attribute "form" are you referring to?
> > > 
> > > Oops, it's not an IDL function.  I meant 'form' IDL attributes of button,
> > > fieldset, input, keygen,  output, select, and textarea.
> > 
> > Same functionality/behavior is provided, see
> > HTMLFormControlElement::virtualForm()
> 
> ok, I understand.
> 
> I expect only literal renaming for a CL of which description says it renames
> something. Such changes need explanation.

A form() method in both HTMLElement and FormAssociatedElement() made the
previous re-definitions of form() on HTMLFormControlElement and
HTMLObjectElement needed, I think. But no more, so it seemed worth tidying this
up here as well.

(Atomic CLs are slow to work with at times. But not here.. thanks for the
super-quick turnaround :-) )

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-10 09:15:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sigbjornf@opera.com/93723003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-10 09:29:22]

Retried try job too often on blink_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=blink_pres...

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2013-12-10 09:31:41]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-10 09:34:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sigbjornf@opera.com/93723003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-10 10:31:30]

Change committed as 163523

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2013-12-10 20:32:57]

LGTM