- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:05:08 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20567 --- Comment #42 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> --- (In reply to Bobby Holley (:bholley) from comment #40) > I was talking about the case where document.open ejects all the nodes and > leaves them behind in the old window, but still keeping a reference to the > node in script. This leaks the old scope until the reference goes away. But > my point is that this is a much narrower case than "every time a node is > adopted cross-scope", and that matters a lot when we're talking about > performance IMO. Also, there's disagreement about whether document.open is > even in-scope for this bug. I'm arguing that while leaking is bad, there's a tradeoff involved here. And I don't know to what extent the cases discussed here cause leaks. Maybe time spent reducing leaks is better spent elsewhere. > How about we just make adoptNode throw for any element with a > binding? I don't imagine anyone would complain too hard about that. Boris argues that throwing is a bad idea: <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21485#c6> I agree. re: Comment 41, compatibility is one constraint. I don't think the absence of compatibility constraints gives us a free pass on developer ergonomics. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 01:05:11 UTC