On Jan 4, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us> wrote: > On 2010-01-04 12:46 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: >> On Jan 3, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> Simple example #1: >>> >>> <!DOCTYPE html> <body> <script> >>> document.body.appendChild(document.createTextNode("ba")); >>> document.body.appendChild(document.createTextNode("r")); </script> >> >> I see. I would treat that as if it were all one node, since there >> would seem to be little advantage to not doing so. > > If you assign each of these statements to a variable, there's going to > be a problem getting and altering nodes that don't exist because > you've > arbitrarily merged them with other nodes. I'm not merging them in the DOM; I'm just treating then as merged for the sake of matching them with the string in the pseudo-element function. > There can be advantages (other than variables) to having separate text > nodes as well. I don't doubt that, ad I'm not proposing that the selector changes the DOM. >>> Simple example #2: >>> >>> <!DOCTYPE html> <body> ba<!--comment, so the textnodes aren't even >>> quite adjacent in the DOM-->r >> >> Hmm. It is a bit murkier, but I think that treating the comment as >> though it were utter nothingness and as if "bar" was all part of the >> same node would be the right thing to do. > > There's been a comment node type since DOM1, so you can't arbitrarily > scrap the node to merge the text nodes. I'm not. I'm just ignoring it when determining what ::text() would match. It would still be there for all other purposes. >Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 07:21:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:23 GMT