Re: readonly nodes

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 10:53, Rahul Srivastava wrote:
> > Arnold, Curt wrote...
> > 
> > 
> > Basically, the WG decided that the explicit statement that setting a
> > nodeValue has no effect when nodeValue is defined to be null took precedence
> > over throwing an exception when the node is readonly.
> 
> As of today DOM L1 SE, L2, L3 say:
> "The value of this node, depending on its type; see the table above. When it is 
> definied to be null, setting it has no effect".
> 
> But no one, neither errata says that no effect takes precedence over throwing 
> exception.
> 
> Is the precedence clause going to be in DOM L1 SE, L2 errata and L3?

It is going to be a L2 erratum and included in L3. Regarding DOM L1 SE,
no further developement are planned on it. Someone suggested a few
months ago that it would be better to remove it.

Philippe

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 15:50:12 UTC