W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: The "splice" call

From: Mike Champion <mcc@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:58:41 -0400
Message-Id: <98May19.215903edt.26881@thicket.arbortext.com>
To: "Ray Whitmer" <ray@corel.com>, www-dom@w3.org
At 07:32 PM 5/19/98 -0400, Ray Whitmer wrote:
>It seems to me the "splice" method of text is lacking definition:
>What happens if the element in question already has children?  Are they
>What happens if the text in question has no parent so it can have no
>It seems that an exception would be called for (and I am beginning to
>think most of these exceptions should be "run time" exceptions when they
>represent a programming error because programmers would rarely have
>alternate behavior for programming errors).

That sounds reasonable ...
>For that matter, what if the specified element is already a child of
>some other element?  I have always thought that an insert or replace (or
>splice) should remove first from the existing parent/sibling order, but
>I haven't seen that spelled out.

I agree; I'll propose that language to make it explicit.

>Another natural question is, how about providing the reverse of a splice
>operation, which yanks the element out making the children into siblings
>of the prior siblings, and joining any ajacent texts back together.

Yes, we've discussed that; I'm not sure why it's not in the spec, but I
agree it should be.

>But I guess "splice" type functionality might not be considered so
>important a functionality for the core to worry that much about.

Well, if it's not well-specified, we won't have interoperability, so it
needs to either go in properly or come out!

>Otherwise, I might go on about the need for symetrical functionality
>between element iteration and PCDATA iteration.  Splice is just as
>useful for elements with children as for text with characters.  For that
>matter, iterators are at least as useful for text with characters as in
>their current form for elements with children.

Could you elaborate, and perhaps make a more concrete suggestion?  This
sounds reasonable ...


Mike Champion
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 22:02:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:04 UTC