W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [DOMCore] ownerDocument of a Document object

From: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 06:48:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4DECDAAC.1000508@mozilla.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-dom@w3.org
On 6/5/11 5:06 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/3/11 2:44 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
>> Also, the final step of the ensure algorithm is this:
>>> If old's |ownerDocument
>>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-node-ownerdocument>| 
>>> and new's |ownerDocument
>>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-node-ownerdocument>| 
>>> are not the same, throw a |HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR
>>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-domexception-hierarchy_request_err>| 
>> It seems to me that the previous steps of the algorithm ensure that they
>> are the same and that this step is not necessary.
> Unfortunately, no.  Invoking adoptNode can trigger arbitrary script 
> execution before it returns in several different ways, which can 
> change the ownerDocument of both 'new' and 'old'.  Changing the 
> ownerDocument of 'old' while not messing with 'new', in particular, 
> will make the ownerDocuments not match.
> -Boris
Really?  Because of mutation events?  Fired synchronously? I believe 
that the latest DOM events spec draft has made mutation events 
optional.  It seems to me that DOM Core is the place to define them 
(since it defines all the mutation methods) if they were going to be 
included in this spec...  I'd argue that this spec doesn't need to 
include language that is only necessary on implementations that have 
implemented features outside of the spec.

Or am I missing some other way that adoptNode can cause script execution?

Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 13:48:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:17 UTC