- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:58:26 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25412 --- Comment #17 from Olli Pettay <bugs@pettay.fi> --- (In reply to Aryeh Gregor from comment #15) > I just looked over the spec briefly, and am pretty sure nothing there would > be made more problematic by removing the recursion guard. As it stands, > implementers have to be very careful here anyway, just like with mutation > events, "just like mutation events" and those are a nightmare which we all want to get rid of. But even then, what is the sane behavior with nested next/previousNode() calls? And is there any reason why we should allow that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 25 April 2014 10:58:32 UTC