Ian Hickson wrote:
Chaals, please see the end of this message.
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It seems to me that everyone agrees that insertNode() was always
intended to insert a node _into_ the range, and that the collapsed
case was simply lost between the cracks when the DOM WG was writing
the spec (much as was interaction with mutation events, for instance).
Everyone who? And based on what? I don't see anything in the spec that
suggests that. And as Olli pointed out there is clearly language in the
spec that indicates that the inserted node would be after the range in
the collapsed case.
Well, everyone except you and Olli apparently. :-)
Who is "everyone"? I've only seen you stating that the spec can be
interpreted different ways after Olli pointed out what the definition of
"context tree" is.
Do you really think that it was intended for insertNode() to act
differently when the range was collapsed than when the range wasn't
collapsed, with respect to whether the inserted node ends up in the range
or not?
"Act differently" is a matter of how you view it.
I guess I'm fine with making the change to the spec, but it would be a
change and not an errata.
I'm not sure what the distinction is.
W3C has in the past been very reluctant to making changes to specs, even
when specs have been incompatible with the web.
If we decide that it's ok to make functional changes to the spec we're
opening the flood gates for many more changes than merely clarifications.
/ Jonas
