- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:22:34 -0500
- To: www-dom@w3.org
>I would be satisfied with a simple phrase to the effect that >``the behavior of an iterator under changes of document structure >may be undefined in some implementations.'' That could be simplified to "is undefined" -- if it's implementation dependent, it's implementation dependent and that's the end of it. "It might or might not behave this particular way" probably belongs in the tutorial, or in the docs for a particular implementation, rather than the spec itself. I too would be content with that answer. Or preferably with a slight refinement saying that editing or relocating the iterator's last-viewed node will have unpredictable effects, since other changes to the document are relatively easy to handle... and in fact may not require any special-casing at all if the iterator works purely in terms of tree navigation and the current state of the DOM at the moment we ask it for the next matching node. But if we can find a way to _inexpensively_ guard the user against stubbing their toe, or at least inform them of what they banged into, so they can more easily fix their code to not do it again, I think that's worth considering. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research Unless stated otherwise, all opinions are solely those of the author.
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 1998 16:22:55 UTC