On Wed, 14 May 2008, Robert Sayre wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As I said in the very first e-mail on this subject, that's what I'd > > like to do. However, that's a significantly higher cost (years vs > > weeks) than releasing an errata, and it was my impression that the > > Mozilla community would like a quick turnaround on this. > > It looks to me like you're retroactively specifying something in your > test.
The test verifies that when you call insertNode() on a range, the node that is passed is inserted into the range, as is required by DOM2 range section 2.9. Inserting Content, sentences 1 and 2 (before and after the code snippet). These sentences are contradicted by the more generic sentences in section 2.12.1. Insertions, which don't take insertNode() into account for the case of a collapsed range, and thus end up not implementing the requirement in the former section. I hold that the intent of the spec is clear, in that it would be pretty dumb for an API for inserting nodes into a range didn't actually insert nodes into a range; however, I agree that it is possible to interpret the spec in a way that assums that the generic rules in the latter section override the statements in the former section, hence my proposal that we raise this as an errata. > If there is disagreement about a change to normative behavior, it seems > like the right thing to do would be to discuss it, not pick one > interpretation and try to jam it through as errata. Right, that's why I raised on the list, so that we can discuss it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'