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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply via email to