- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:12:02 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28107
--- Comment #2 from Bergi <a.d.bergi@web.de> ---
> Doesn't step 3.2 handle the scenario you're talking about?
No, that only seems to handle siblings. Or at least it looked like that, I
don't know what exactly I thought a year ago :-)
However, step 3.2 still seems buggy. I'm not exactly sure what "following"
means here, but in either case:
* If "following" refers to "following siblings", then the Treewalker
`nextNode()` algorithm never steps upwards
* If "following" is taken literally for the linked definition ("following in
tree order"), it would include the siblings of the parent nodes, but it would
also mean that any descendants of a node are following it and the phrase "not
following root" doesn't make sense if we intend to walk the subtree of root.
> We moved to GitHub a while back and I've been poor at addressing the remaining Bugzilla feedback.
That's OK, if we should move this to Github for convenience I'll open an issue
over there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 14:12:10 UTC