- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:08:57 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25412 --- Comment #11 from Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> --- This doesn't catch that case for TreeWalker, because you can set .currentNode to anything from the filter and it doesn't hit the recursion guard. For NodeIterator, it would behave strangely if you called nextNode() or previousNode() from the filter, but no more strangely than if you mutated the DOM it's operating on. For instance, according to a strict implementation of the spec, you could get .referenceNode to not be a descendant of .root by calling .nextNode(), and then having the filter move the node somewhere else before the iterator actually updates its position. Probably something similar is possible in implementations (I didn't test). So I don't see why we shouldn't just remove the recursion guard entirely, given that IE/Chrome don't implement it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 16:08:59 UTC