W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2011

[whatwg] Automatic transaction should support changing the value of input/textarea

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:57:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABNRm60OwNRWYGAsTE7+KFK1bXG1YhbiMW6SqugDN7MjHgJFPg@mail.gmail.com>
On my second thought, it's probably okay to require UAs to always restore
the entire value because the only cause where UA needs to store the old
data is when the script sets the value in automatic transaction, and it
doesn't impose new burdens on UAs in any other situations since scripts
can't access the shadow DOM of native input/textarea implementations.

Alright, I think I'd just say that assignment to value should be revertible
unconditionally so as long as input and textarea exist.

- Ryosuke
 On Nov 9, 2011 9:38 AM, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yup, that seems like the right solution. But we should specify exactly
> >> what the UA should store. I.e. should it store the whole before/after
> >> values?
> >
> > That seems expensive.
> >>
> >> What should it do if the after-value doesn't match the current
> >> value when the transaction is reverted?
> >
> > Hm... so the only way this could happen is if script assigned a value to
> the value IDL attribute, so it's probably safe to say we should abort (i.e.
> no restoration of the value)
>
> As long as we define exactly when to "abort". If we say that it aborts any
> time the value doesn't match the old after-value, then we have to remember
> that whole value (which you argued was expensive above)
>
> / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 26 November 2011 18:57:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:09 UTC