W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [dom] Need to describe the interaction of adoptNode with prototype chains

From: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:49:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKBxTcKij=Bo2uxjezhchJq8O_TTB3vyavOEmO6NrLyzJ_zbkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-dom@w3.org, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Replace the Document's singleton objects with new instances of those
> objects. (This includes in particular the Window, Location, History,
> ApplicationCache, and Navigator, objects, the various BarProp objects, the
> two Storage objects, the various HTMLCollection objects, and objects
> defined by other specifications, like Selection and the document's
> UndoManager. It also includes all the Web IDL prototypes in the JavaScript
> binding, including the Document object's prototype.)"
>
> I see even Object.prototype doesn't survive in Gecko.
> What does observably survive to document.open?
>

The document. This is observable in terms of identity, and in terms of the
old nodes still treating that document as their owner, despite having been
removed from the DOM.


> Could it be possible to pretend that document.open is like a navigation
> instead of the complicated algorithm removing everything?
>

Given the above, I think this would require seriously extending the
definition of navigation. In particular, the old scope is toast, since it
doesn't have a document anymore.

bholley
Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2012 19:33:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 December 2012 19:34:09 GMT