Add intentional optimization comment in Node::setTextContent

Add intentional optimization comment in Node::setTextContent

SPEC: http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-node-textcontent

Current spec describes to use new text node
on setting Node.textContent
However, current implementation added early return
for optimization purpose.

So this CL added a note as well as crbug pointer
to describe those explicitly.

TEST=LayoutTests/fast/dom/Node/textContent.html

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=178386

[kangil_, 2014-07-12 07:33:26]

PTAL

[haraken, 2014-07-12 15:46:13]

Does the new behavior align with Firefox and IE?

https://codereview.chromium.org/383163003/diff/20001/LayoutTests/fast/dom/Nod...
File LayoutTests/fast/dom/Node/textContent.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/383163003/diff/20001/LayoutTests/fast/dom/Nod...
LayoutTests/fast/dom/Node/textContent.html:25: var element =
document.createElement("div")

Nit: We normally add ';' to each statement.

[kangil_, 2014-07-12 16:12:10]

Thanks for review.
I added behavior in other browsers in description.

PTAL!

https://codereview.chromium.org/383163003/diff/20001/LayoutTests/fast/dom/Nod...
File LayoutTests/fast/dom/Node/textContent.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/383163003/diff/20001/LayoutTests/fast/dom/Nod...
LayoutTests/fast/dom/Node/textContent.html:25: var element =
document.createElement("div")
On 2014/07/12 15:46:13, haraken wrote:
> 
> Nit: We normally add ';' to each statement.

Done.

[haraken, 2014-07-12 16:44:12]

LGTM

[kangil_, 2014-07-12 16:45:56]

The CQ bit was checked by kangil.han@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-12 16:47:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/kangil.han@samsung.com/383163003/40001

[sof, 2014-07-12 16:54:14]

(Cc: +eseidel.)

Hmm, didn't we add this as an optimization in crbug.com/352836 recently - why is
it being rolled out?

If not already, please look at the history of code being removed so as to
understand why/how/what.

[haraken, 2014-07-12 16:56:23]

The CQ bit was unchecked by haraken@chromium.org

[haraken, 2014-07-12 16:56:48]

On 2014/07/12 16:54:14, sof wrote:
> (Cc: +eseidel.)
> 
> Hmm, didn't we add this as an optimization in crbug.com/352836 recently - why
is
> it being rolled out?
> 
> If not already, please look at the history of code being removed so as to
> understand why/how/what.

Thanks for the info. Unchecked the cq bit.

[eseidel, 2014-07-12 17:34:07]

not lgtm.  This was an intentional optimization.

[haraken, 2014-07-12 17:48:46]

It'd be great if we have a comment to mention that this is intentionally
violating the spec for optimization.

[eseidel, 2014-07-12 17:51:19]

I should note that this is also only one of several places where we make this
optimization.  As discussed in crbug.com/352836

I too was skeptical of this optimization.  But we've had it for years and it
hasn't broken the web.  We should just get the spec changed.

[kangil_, 2014-07-13 11:03:09]

On 2014/07/12 17:34:07, eseidel wrote:
> not lgtm.  This was an intentional optimization.

Thanks for explanation.
PTAL!

[kangil_, 2014-07-17 11:51:48]

@eseidel: Gentle ping. :)

[eseidel, 2014-07-17 16:54:30]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-17 17:49:39]

Change committed as 178386