- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:46:23 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25412 --- Comment #12 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> --- > So I don't see why we shouldn't just remove the recursion guard entirely, given > that IE/Chrome don't implement it. I think we can, as long as we audit the spec to make sure it behaves correctly without it. Looking at Chrome's implementation of NodeIterator::nextNode, it doesn't match the spec in all sorts of ways (e.g. the m_candidateNode member has no equivalent in the spec, there is nothing like pointerBeforeReferenceNode in the Blink impl afaict, there's an extra m_detached check that has no spec equivalent, and a few other odds and ends), so the fact that they consider it safe to invoke nextNode from inside the filter tells me nothing about whether it's safe with the spec's algorithm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 17:46:25 UTC