- From: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:38:31 -0400
On 11-08-11 6:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa<rniwa at webkit.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Ehsan Akhgari<ehsan at mozilla.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think the confusion is arising because you chose to attach undoManager >>> to elements, not nodes. Note that document _is_ a node in the DOM, but it's >>> not an element. I think we should just modify the spec to attach >>> undoManager to nodes. Once we have that, we don't need to treat >>> documentElement specially at all, it just looks at its parent (the document >>> node) and gets the undoManager from there. >> >> Makes sense. >>> >>> The only downside is that we should explicitly prohibit some node types >>> from having an undoManager where it doesn't make sense (such as text nodes, >>> comment nodes, etc.). We can enumerate them explicitly and say that >>> accessing the undoManager on these types of nodes will throw. >> >> Alternatively, can we say that only Element and Document are allowed to have >> it? > > Yup, that's what I think we should do. Though it'll sort of fall out > naturally since UndoManagers are by default only available on > Documents, and the only way you can enable it on other Nodes is > through attributes, which only exist on Elements. Yes, that sounds good to me too. Ehsan
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 14:38:31 UTC