Comments on: Bookmarklets updated to comply with DOM 2 rule http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/ Jesse Ruderman on Firefox, security, and more Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:56:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Øyvind http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-2916 Øyvind Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:27:55 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/#comment-2916 Though English is not my first language, nor my second, I am still pretty sure there is supposed to be a dot at the end of the error message. It is a sentence after all. But it was more ment as irony. The error message can't be missunderstood. Sorry, for the double confusion here. As long as the appendChild method works the way it was intended, I am happy..:) Though English is not my first language, nor my second, I am still pretty sure there is supposed to be a dot at the end of the error message. It is a sentence after all.

But it was more ment as irony. The error message can’t be missunderstood. Sorry, for the double confusion here. As long as the appendChild method works the way it was intended, I am happy..:)

]]> By: Jesse Ruderman http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-2915 Jesse Ruderman Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:11:13 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/#comment-2915 How would you improve its punctuation? No errors jump out at me... How would you improve its punctuation? No errors jump out at me…

]]> By: Øyvind Ø http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-2914 Øyvind Ø Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:27:31 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/#comment-2914 Except for punctuation, it can't be much better..:D Except for punctuation, it can’t be much better..:D

]]> By: Jesse Ruderman http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-2912 Jesse Ruderman Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:42:21 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/#comment-2912 Gecko's error message is "Node cannot be used in a document other than the one in which it was created" :) Gecko’s error message is “Node cannot be used in a document other than the one in which it was created” :)

]]> By: Wladimir Palant http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-2851 Wladimir Palant Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:58:25 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/#comment-2851 I just hope Gecko won't copy Internet Explorer's error message here - I rarely see anything so useless and misleading :) I just hope Gecko won’t copy Internet Explorer’s error message here – I rarely see anything so useless and misleading :)

]]> By: voracity http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-2793 voracity Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:53:31 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/2006/11/02/bookmarklets-updated-to-comply-with-dom-2-rule/#comment-2793 I don't understand why this was implemented. I read through the bug, and I still don't understand it. Do you have any ideas why its considered useful? IE + standards conformance doesn't make sense to me, since DOM v3 (or v4) could just remove the requirement, and Gecko's behaviour is a superset of IE's behaviour. Also, does a workaround just involve invoking innerHTML/removeChild (or something equivalent if that's not standard enough)? I don’t understand why this was implemented. I read through the bug, and I still don’t understand it. Do you have any ideas why its considered useful? IE + standards conformance doesn’t make sense to me, since DOM v3 (or v4) could just remove the requirement, and Gecko’s behaviour is a superset of IE’s behaviour.

Also, does a workaround just involve invoking innerHTML/removeChild (or something equivalent if that’s not standard enough)?

]]>