W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Should Document.cloneNode() work in Level 1?

From: Kirkpatrick, Alfie <akirkpatrick@ims-global.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:37:38 +0100
Message-Id: <199809100843.EAA01357@www10.w3.org>
To: www-dom@w3.org, Ray Whitmer <ray@imall.com>
Ray, I haven't read the (many) other thoughts on this in my mailbox
this morning. I just want to point out that I wasn't suggesting that
cloneNode should modify the parentNode and ownerDocument to
avoid cloning, but that appendChild could do this as an alternative
to calling cloneNode, in certain circumstances.

Alfie.

> ----------
> From: 	Ray Whitmer
> Sent: 	09 September 1998 17:11
> To: 	www-dom@w3.org
> Subject: 	Re: Should Document.cloneNode() work in Level 1?
> 
> > A performance boost might be to say that if the newChild is the same
> > implementation, has a different ownerDocument but doesn't have a parent
> > (perhaps after a removeChild), the custom interface could be used to
> modify
> > the ownerDocument and the parentNode, and thus avoid cloning.
> 
> I strongly disagree.  This is far worse than simply adding transferNode.
> cloneNode should always clone the node.  The type of complex behavior you
> describe should never be a part of cloneNode, i.e. sometimes it clones and
> sometimes it returns the original.  If you want transferNode, then call it
> that.
> 


Received on Thursday, 10 September 1998 04:43:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:45 GMT