- From: Jake Verbaten <raynos2@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:32:18 -0800
- To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMCMjp3vF=dnTtuydn5thaTaR3227vZbFMf7jhcambVdJCRMKQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/16/2013 02:52 AM, Jake Verbaten wrote: > >> The older DOM mutation methods like >> >> Node appendChild(Node node); >> >> returned the node you inserted >> >> The newer DOM mutation methods like >> >> void append((Node or DOMString)... nodes); >> >> return void instead. >> >> It would be useful if append returned either the single node or a >> DocumentFragment >> > > The DocumentFragment option seems somewhat difficult to implement; > wouldn't it require the nodes passed to append() to be children of the > newly created DocumentFragment, as well as the node append() was called on? > What should parentNode return on those nodes? > I actually meant the value returned would be the result of the mutation macro ( http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#mutation-method-macro ) which is either null for no nodes, a single node, or the document fragment that's created. That document fragment when passed back to me as a result would actually have no children because in the process appending the document fragment to the parent container the nodes have been removed. The only reason to pass the document fragment back is to match what elem.appendChild(documentFragment) does currently and to have the result be either null or a single type. In reality it might make more sense to return the first node in nodes or the nodes as an array. > > Thanks > Ms2ger > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 10:32:46 UTC