- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:27:37 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > 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.) Not neccesarily. You could simply say that if during the execution of adoptNode, any events or callbacks are fired, and those handlers move the node to another document, then adoptNode will throw an exception. > Is it still likely we can get rid of mutation events and replace them? I'm hoping so yes. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 18:34:49 UTC