- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:18:14 -0700
- To: Kartikaya Gupta <lists.webapps@stakface.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Jul 17, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > > Difficulty of implementations in general, yes. Difficulty of > individual implementations, no. There are countless other > implementations of MutationEvents out in the world (http://google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=DOMNodeRemoved+-mozilla+-webcore&sbtn=Search > ). They exist in more languages and are used in more contexts than I > care to enumerate, and they don't seem to have this problem (also > think of the backwards-compatibility nightmare it would be to try > and update those implementations if they adopt this proposed D3E, > which means they probably won't). Most of those search results are code that registers mutation event listeners, not implementations. Looking at a few of the implementations, they appear to either be buggy in the face of mutation events that modify the DOM (will remove the node from the wrong parent if the mutation event moves it for example), or they fire DONodeRemoved after the mutation is fully or partially performed, or both. At least one of these was true of the Python DOM, libgdome, the tcl DOM and DOMJuan, the first 4 actual implementations that show up. The Python case is particularly egregious as it appears that it can leave the DOM in an inconsistent state. It seems to me these search results are evidence that the current spec is too hard to implement. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 22:18:55 UTC