- From: smaug---- <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:11:32 -0800
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/1307/review/2428350892@github.com>
@smaug---- commented on this pull request. > + <li><p>Let <var>oldParent</var> be <var>node</var>'s <a for=tree>parent</a>. + + <li><p><a>Assert</a>: <var>oldParent</var> is non-null. + + <li><p>Let <var>index</var> be <var>node</var>'s <a for=tree>index</a>. + + <li> + <p>For each <a>live range</a> whose <a for=range>start node</a> is <var>parent</var> and + <a for=range>start offset</a> is greater than <var>index</var>, decrease its + <a for=range>start offset</a> by 1.</p> + + <p class="note">Note that unlike the traditional <a for=/ lt="remove">removal</a> case, we do not + need to update <a>live range</a> state when their <a for=range>start node</a> or + <a for=range>end node</a> is an <a>inclusive descendant</a> of the <var>node</var>. This is + because said <a>nodes</a> do not get removed from their <a>tree</a>, so ranges associated with + them stay intact.</p> That wouldn't be consistent with other tree operations. I think I'd prefer a model where ranges were treated as if a node was removed and then added back to a different place in tree. (Kind of like how MutationRecords are handled) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1307#discussion_r1837325656 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/1307/review/2428350892@github.com>
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 00:11:36 UTC