[whatwg] Feedback on UndoManager spec

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:

> What we should do is to define exactly how the tracking works, and
> what exact operations the browser does to revert a automatic
> transaction.

Yeah, it'll be ideal if we could specify that.

For example, if we say that for each node removed when a automatic
> transaction is created, the browser records that nodes old parent and
> previous sibling. Then we can say that when the automatic transaction
> is undone, the browser checks that the old previous sibling is still a
> child of the parent (unless the previous sibling was null), if the
> test passes, the browser inserts the removed node after the previous
> sibling in the parent.
> We could also remember both the following and previous sibling in
> order to be more resilient against unrecorded mutations.

It'll be nice if we could specify that precisely. From what Anne told me
today, all DOM operations are defined in terms of
we can probably define what should happen when unapplying/reapplying
either one.

- Ryosuke

Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 20:54:54 UTC