- From: Andrea Giammarchi <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 01:47:42 -0700
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/736/2814944103@github.com>
WebReflection left a comment (whatwg/dom#736) Yes, boundaries are the thing to define properly, the rest is "*just a node*" (as in: "*just a fragment*") but comments are the easiest way to go ... about *ProcessingInstruction* idea I was excited until I've found out that both those and *CDATA* sections end up as comments and `<!--?group?-->`, when `<?group?>` was used, is even more ugly than `<!--<group>-->` to me and I save you time to represent what CDATA would look like. I think named group with comments (or a special variant) are just fine and not named group should probably not be serialized via `outerHTML` (or revealed via `innerHTML`) but I really don't understand this push back about comments ... no user would notice and repeated similar content is cheap after compression + it works already ... it's eventually that *special* comment that could help *devtools* to debug groups so I don't understand why these can't be just comments to keep it as simple as possible, but of course I'd welcome a new "*special kind of node/comment*" although I am not sure that's really needed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/736#issuecomment-2814944103 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/736/2814944103@github.com>
Received on Friday, 18 April 2025 08:47:46 UTC