- From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@crc.ricoh.com>
- Date: 27 Jul 1998 14:20:19 -0700
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
keshlam@us.ibm.com writes: > Its simpler than it seems. Each insertion or removal involves > incrementing > or decrementing the index by one. > > That's not quite so simple, unless I'm missing something. I _hope_ that what you're missing is that one only has to renumber the nodes in a nodelist if they are all siblings. Our implementation of a NodeList simply refers to the parent and the renumbering happens automatically. Actually, we have _two_ implementations of the NodeList interface: ChildNodeList, which contains the children of a single Node, and ArrayNodeList, which is an array of potentially unrelated nodes. Only the former is ``live''. It would be useful if the specification reflected this distinction. It's extremely useful to have both ``live'' and ``dead'' (or at least, flash-frozen) collections of nodes. -- Stephen R. Savitzky Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc., <steve@rsv.ricoh.com> California Research Center voice: 650.496.5710 fax: 650.854.8740 URL: http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/ home: <steve@starport.com> URL: http://www.starport.com/people/steve/
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 17:33:49 UTC