- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:30:05 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: olli@pettay.fi, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>, chaals@opera.com
Ian Hickson wrote: > > Chaals, please see the end of this message. > > On Wed, 28 May 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> It seems to me that everyone agrees that insertNode() was always >>> intended to insert a node _into_ the range, and that the collapsed >>> case was simply lost between the cracks when the DOM WG was writing >>> the spec (much as was interaction with mutation events, for instance). >> Everyone who? And based on what? I don't see anything in the spec that >> suggests that. And as Olli pointed out there is clearly language in the >> spec that indicates that the inserted node would be after the range in >> the collapsed case. > > Well, everyone except you and Olli apparently. :-) Who is "everyone"? I've only seen you stating that the spec can be interpreted different ways after Olli pointed out what the definition of "context tree" is. > Do you really think that it was intended for insertNode() to act > differently when the range was collapsed than when the range wasn't > collapsed, with respect to whether the inserted node ends up in the range > or not? "Act differently" is a matter of how you view it. >> I guess I'm fine with making the change to the spec, but it would be a >> change and not an errata. > > I'm not sure what the distinction is. W3C has in the past been very reluctant to making changes to specs, even when specs have been incompatible with the web. If we decide that it's ok to make functional changes to the spec we're opening the flood gates for many more changes than merely clarifications. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 05:31:30 UTC