- From: Anthony Ramine <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:15:22 -0800
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
Received on Saturday, 28 November 2015 00:15:49 UTC
Ok so I was confused this afternoon and thought about this again. I still think queuing two records when child is node is wrong. @foolip's case is not a problem with this patch. The two records being queued in the case of an arbitrary child being replaced by one of its siblings are: `[(removedNodes = node), (removedNodes = child, addedNodes = node)]`, so my fear of having a nonsensical record was wrong. @smaug---- please explain why you think just `[(removedNodes = node, addedNodes = node)]` in the case where child is node is nonsensical. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/121#issuecomment-160228846
Received on Saturday, 28 November 2015 00:15:49 UTC