- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:02:29 +0200
- To: Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com> wrote: > Gecko knows if a Range is part of a Selection or not. Authors don't, I don't think. Of course, we could expose this info to authors if we wanted, so that's not a big problem. > True, I'm just saying that I don't see any practical problems in > implementing live ranges to manipulate the Selection if we want to. I don't think there are any implementation problems, I just think it's an API that's confusing to authors relative to the alternative (returning copies). And it's probably easier for the UAs that return references to switch to returning copies than the reverse, so it increases the chance of convergence in the near term. Also, if mutating the range throws, it will break author code; but if it fails silently, it creates a "what on earth is going wrong?!" head-banging scenario for authors. And anything authors can do with a reference, they can do with a copy just as well, by mutating the copy, .removeRange(), .addRange(). So I think returning a copy makes much more sense.
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2015 12:03:20 UTC