Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Specify ParentNode.replaceChildren implementation. #835

Closed

Conversation

snuggs
Copy link
Member

@snuggs snuggs commented Feb 14, 2020

Copy link
Member

@annevk annevk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure why you marked this as an editorial change?

Given

This algorithm does not make any checks with regards to the node tree constraints. Specification authors need to use it wisely.

I think I've spotted at least one blocking issue. If after the first step node is not a node you can append to a DocumentFragment, we need to throw. (Probably the HierarchyRequestError the dominfo block already mentions.)

dom.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@snuggs snuggs changed the title Editorial: Specify ParentNode.replaceChildren implementation. Specify ParentNode.replaceChildren implementation. Feb 17, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@smaug---- smaug---- left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on annevk's comment sounds like there should be a variant of replace-all algorithm which deals with exception handling similarly to Append()

Co-Authored-By: Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]>
@annevk annevk closed this in #851 Apr 20, 2020
annevk pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2020
mfreed7 pushed a commit to mfreed7/dom that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants