- From: Di Zhang <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 13:31:24 -0800
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/1342/review/2576595355@github.com>
@dizhang168 commented on this pull request. > + <li><p>For each <a>composed live range</a> whose <a for=range>start node</a> is a + <a>shadow-including inclusive descendant</a> of <var>node</var>, set its <a for=range>start</a> to + (<var>parent</var>, <var>index</var>). + + <li><p>For each <a>composed live range</a> whose <a for=range>end node</a> is an + <a>shadow-including inclusive descendant</a> of <var>node</var>, set its <a for=range>end</a> to + (<var>parent</var>, <var>index</var>). Hum, I think my original statement that the rule should be applied twice is wrong. Suppose the document stores a list of all live ranges, including cached live range. For each of them, it will update per mutation rule. Then if it is a cached live range and hence, attached to a composed live range, it will update the composed live range per the ["set the start or end" algorithm](https://whatpr.org/dom/1342.html#concept-range-bp-set) redefined in this PR. If so, the composed live range do not need be updated again by the mutation, as it is already up to date. Now, to avoid inefficiency, we could change every "For each live range" to "For each {{Range}} object". -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1342#discussion_r1931213054 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/1342/review/2576595355@github.com>
Received on Monday, 27 January 2025 21:31:28 UTC