W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2015

Re: A question about Range#insertNode

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:02:32 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxnkVqBpKCDosc+oAyRzxQy05LQ=8PjW6zP5+d8ZEVVUyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Looks like you're correct, that bit should be removed.  If you update
the test to match the new algorithm (assuming I wrote a test for it,
I'm pretty sure I did) and it doesn't change which browsers pass, then
we could be extra super sure.  :)

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Step 7 of <https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-range-insert> reads
>>> If /range/’s start node is a Text node, split it with offset
>>> /range/’s start offset, set /referenceNode/ to the result, and set
>>> /parent/ to /referenceNode/’s parent.
>> In this case, /referenceNode/ has been set to /range/’s start node
>> (step 3), and /parent/ has been set to /referenceNode/’s parent (step
>> 5). The split algorithm returns a node with the same parent as its
>> argument, so I believe that this step doesn't actually change /parent/.
>> Could you confirm and maybe add a note to the spec here?
> You mean removing setting /parent/ again? Seems conrrect. I wonder if
> Aryeh has a second to take a look since I believe he wrote that
> algorithm.
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 11:03:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:20 UTC