Re: Current state of DOM2 Traversel and Range

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Morten Barklund wrote:
> I am writing due to an interest in the DOM2 Traversal and Range 
> specification, that I understand is in need of a rewrite.
> However, I fail to see the "many" problems being the cause for this need 
> - I have read the Errata, but it only has minor corrections and then 
> there was the discussion on this list last year about Range.insertNode().

The many problems all boil down to the same thing: lack of precision in 
edge cases.

> What is the status of the adoption of the specification? Are browser 
> implementations so far from specification, that it is irrelevant or have 
> vendors understood parts of the spec differently due to missing details 
> or?

The latter, mainly.

> What would be the purpose of a rewrite and what would be the work 
> involved?

The purpose would be to make it so well-defined that implementations could 
be interoperable without reverse-engineering each other. The work involved 
would be writing a new spec from scratch, probably about 10-20 hours a 
week for four months, followed by maintenance and bug fixing, probably 
about 5 hours a week for six months, followed by waiting for someone else 
to write a test suite, helping them out where possible and fixing problems 
they find, probably a few years with minimal work on average but with the 
occasional 20-hour week when an implementor or tester finds a bunch of 
problems at once.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 11:38:04 UTC