W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] Random comments about UndoManager

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:27:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABNRm63P6u7jo-DU+SORFd5uPT3XPSXGBSiFAoh_FwBFFY6pag@mail.gmail.com>
To: olli@pettay.fi
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>
I'm sorry for the delay. I've updated the spec per your comment:

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:
>> Should it be defined that <input> and <textarea> have implicit undoscope
>> by default?
> The problem is that we don't have a way of removing undo scope. We might
> need to allow undoscope=false/true.

I still haven't figured out this problem. On one hand, this default
behavior makes sense but we probably need a way to share undo manager
between multiple text fields. But making undoscope content attribute take a
boolean just to deal with this case is inelegant at best.

What does "destroy the corresponding UndoManager for the scope." mean?
>> If JS keeps a pointer to the manager, the object sure stays alive, and
>> if I read the draft correctly, one can use some of the methods of
>> a destroyed UndoManager.
> Yeah, I need to define it properly. It basically means that element's
> undoManager property will return null thereafter.

I've introduced new concept of an undo manager being "disconnected" in
which state undo manager is immutable.

I should define what happens when you call methods on those orphaned
> methods I guess.


- Ryosuke
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 06:28:59 UTC

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