- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:22:39 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:12:27 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:47:01 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> >> wrote: >>> For what it's worth, we still throw WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR in a few places >>> in gecko: >>> >>> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR&find=\.cpp > > Well, you have the same situation if the call is made by a mutation > event handler if the node-to-be-adopted has a parent. There is also > the situation where createDocument is called and passed a doctype > node, which already has a non-null ownerDocument. > > In short, I'd encourage you to go through the search results linked to > above. Thanks! So if we were to define this properly would that mean mutation events would have to be defined as part of DOM Core? (And DOM Core have a dependency on DOM Events.) Is it still likely we can get rid of mutation events and replace them? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 09:23:20 UTC