forgto this: yes, offline DOM node means a DOM that is not part of the live
DOM tree ... that is, indeed, disconnected, offline, no CSS, no repaint, no
reflow, nothing ... is offline. Isn't this term good enough? I thought that
makes sense
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> do you have any example of what you are saying? all my examples fail and I
> don't understand other use cases.
>
> As you said, if a Proxy should be undetectable a broken Proxy that cannot
> be used is a pointless object full of inconsistency in the environment,
> IMHO.
>
> Is this the decision then? Let the new Proxy accept any target even if the
> target cannot be "proxied" ?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 09/01/2013 21:57, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>>
>> Last, but not least, even offline DOM proxies are pointless, here
>>> another example without putting them in the DOM
>>>
>> What's an "offline DOM Proxy"?
>>
>>
>> var p = new Proxy(
>>> document.createElement("p"),
>>>
>>> {}
>>> );
>>> try {
>>> p.appendChild(
>>>
>> That's what you call "without putting them in the DOM"? ;-)
>> What are you going to do when your proxy node has a child? Probably put
>> it on the DOM eventually, I guess, no?
>>
>>
>> document.createElement("span")
>>> );
>>> } catch(o_O) {
>>> console.log(o_O.message);
>>> }
>>> try {
>>> p.appendChild(
>>> new Proxy(
>>> document.createElement("span")**,
>>>
>>> {}
>>> )
>>> );
>>> } catch(o_O) {
>>> console.log(o_O.message);
>>> }
>>> So, as it is right now, there is not a single reason to make them valid
>>> as new Proxy target, IMHO
>>>
>> Membrane and avoiding the cost of the shadow target sounds like a good
>> enough.
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
