While I agree that it's nice, I have mild preference to return a
clone. As Olii said, changing from clone to live would involve quite a
bit of code. I feel sorry for already implemented people though.

I also guess that we need to ask more work to the spec editor to
support the liveness, such as:
- What will happen to the live-object on removeAllRanges()?
- Would the live-object keeps the same reference for removeAllRanges()
+ addRanges()?
- It may never happen, but when multiple ranges are supported, are
they bound to index?
Specing them in detail and writing tests for all these cases would be
quite a bit of work.


On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Tim Down <t...@timdown.co.uk> wrote:
> For what it's worth as a user of the range and selection APIs, updating a
> live range is convenient and preferable, but since this has never worked in
> all browsers, I never do it and have never recommended it to anyone else.
> Therefore if Gecko changes, nothing really changes for me, so I don't care.
> Knock yourself out, Mozilla.
> Tim
> On 6 January 2015 at 22:32, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote:
>> https://github.com/w3c/selection-api/issues/40
>> Trident (since IE10) and Gecko both return a live Range, which can be
>> modified to update selection.  WebKit and Blink both return a clone Range so
>> that any changes to the Range doesn't update the selection.
>> It appears that there is a moderate interest at Mozilla to change Gecko's
>> behavior.  Does anyone have a strong opinion about this?
>> - R. Niwa

Reply via email to