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.

Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2012 19:33:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:19 UTC