Move insertAdjacentElement/insertAdjacentText to Element.

Move insertAdjacentElement/insertAdjacentText to Element.

They were moved in https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?revision=163529&view=revision
to match http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/#insertadjacenthtml.

The domparsing spec doesn't have insertAdjacentText/insertAdjacentElement.
Unless we remove them, they really should function the same as
insertAdjacentHTML.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=166547

[adamk, 2014-02-04 00:23:04]

It's not clear to me why we should increase the web-exposed surface of Element
with these unspecified methods. Is the argument for doing so just consistency?

[pdr., 2014-02-04 00:28:22]

On 2014/02/04 00:23:04, adamk wrote:
> It's not clear to me why we should increase the web-exposed surface of Element
> with these unspecified methods. Is the argument for doing so just consistency?

I agree with Adam. I think these are reasonable to move up but I wouldn't want
to do that without pushing for a spec. Without that, lets just get rid of them
entirely.

[ojan, 2014-02-04 00:28:29]

On 2014/02/04 00:23:04, adamk wrote:
> It's not clear to me why we should increase the web-exposed surface of Element
> with these unspecified methods. Is the argument for doing so just consistency?

Yes. We should either remove these APIs or have them consistently implemented. I
don't think it makes sense to keep all three of these methods and only have one
of them on Element. Given that insertAdjacentElement seems to have too much
usage to remove, I went with moving them to Element instead of removing them.

[davve, 2014-02-04 09:02:08]

On 2014/02/04 00:28:29, ojan wrote:
> On 2014/02/04 00:23:04, adamk wrote:
> > It's not clear to me why we should increase the web-exposed surface of
Element
> > with these unspecified methods. Is the argument for doing so just
consistency?
> 
> Yes. We should either remove these APIs or have them consistently implemented.

Given https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=811259#c7 I think we should
at least consider removing both insertAdjacentElement and insertAdjacentText.
But I have no first-hand experience with how much trouble the 0.036% of page
views would cause so I can't push very hard.

Some context:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/9oeB2yR4thg/LXnd4ozn...
is where 0.036% of pageviews comes from. The bug for adding them to the spec is
here: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19962 which in turn depends
on https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=286321.

[arv1, 2014-02-04 15:31:18]

I think moving these to Element while we decide if we want to remove them
in the future is the right thing to do. It makes little sense to have
insertAdjacentHTML on Element but insertAdjacentText on HTMLElement.


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:02 AM, <davve@opera.com> wrote:

> On 2014/02/04 00:28:29, ojan wrote:
>
>> On 2014/02/04 00:23:04, adamk wrote:
>> > It's not clear to me why we should increase the web-exposed surface of
>>
> Element
>
>> > with these unspecified methods. Is the argument for doing so just
>>
> consistency?
>
>  Yes. We should either remove these APIs or have them consistently
>> implemented.
>>
>
> Given https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=811259#c7 I think we
> should
> at least consider removing both insertAdjacentElement and
> insertAdjacentText.
> But I have no first-hand experience with how much trouble the 0.036% of
> page
> views would cause so I can't push very hard.
>
> Some context:
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/
> 9oeB2yR4thg/LXnd4oznqIoJ
> is where 0.036% of pageviews comes from. The bug for adding them to the
> spec is
> here: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19962 which in turn
> depends
> on https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=286321.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/147993006/
>



-- 
erik

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to blink-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[ojan, 2014-02-04 18:17:33]

Standards discussed: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19962

lgty?

[pdr., 2014-02-04 20:48:45]

On 2014/02/04 18:17:33, ojan wrote:
> Standards discussed: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19962
> 
> lgty?

This makes me happy. LGTM.

[ojan, 2014-02-04 22:00:09]

The CQ bit was checked by ojan@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-04 22:24:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ojan@chromium.org/147993006/320001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-04 23:29:48]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-04 23:29:49]

Retried try job too often on win_blink_rel for step(s) blink_heap_unittests,
blink_platform_unittests, webkit_lint, webkit_python_tests, webkit_tests,
webkit_unit_tests, wtf_unittests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_blink_...

[ojan, 2014-02-05 01:32:57]

The CQ bit was checked by ojan@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-05 01:33:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ojan@chromium.org/147993006/320001

[davve, 2014-02-05 09:45:06]

When doing the insertAdjacentHTML move I also made an additional fixup to the
IDL definition: https://codereview.chromium.org/109273003/. In the name of
consistency, would you like a follow-up patch that aligns the other
insertAdjacent* in a similar manner. If so, I'll wait until this has landed.

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2014-02-05 19:49:05]

The CQ bit was unchecked by phajdan.jr@chromium.org

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2014-02-05 19:53:02]

The CQ bit was checked by phajdan.jr@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-05 19:53:09]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ojan@chromium.org/147993006/320001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-05 22:10:28]

Change committed as 166547

[ojan, 2014-02-05 22:20:25]

On 2014/02/05 09:45:06, David Vest wrote:
> When doing the insertAdjacentHTML move I also made an additional fixup to the
> IDL definition: https://codereview.chromium.org/109273003/.

Ah. Didn't notice that.

> In the name of
> consistency, would you like a follow-up patch that aligns the other
> insertAdjacent* in a similar manner. If so, I'll wait until this has landed.

Sure.