Closed
Bug 366586
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
move NodeInfo() to nsINode
Categories
(Core :: General, defect)
Core
General
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: surkov, Assigned: surkov)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
4.58 KB,
patch
|
sicking
:
superreview-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
nsIAttribute/nsIContent defines both NodeInfo() method, though mNodeInfo member is defined in nsINode. I guess, it's fine to move NodeInfo() method to nsINode.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•18 years ago
|
||
Attachment #251087 -
Flags: review?(Olli.Pettay)
Comment 2•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 251087 [details] [diff] [review] patch > /** >+ * Get the NodeInfo for this element >+ * @return the nodes node info >+ */ >+ nsINodeInfo *NodeInfo() const >+ { >+ return mNodeInfo; >+ } nsINode isn't necessarily an element, so change the comment. And update the IIDs of the interfaces too. With those, r=me
Attachment #251087 -
Flags: review?(Olli.Pettay) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•18 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → surkov.alexander
Attachment #251087 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #251168 -
Flags: superreview?(bugmail)
Comment on attachment 251168 [details] [diff] [review] patch2 No, I don't think we should do this. The risk is too high that someone will just check that the name of an nsINode is 'input' and assume that it's an input element, whereas in reality it could be an 'input' attribute. This could lead to security issues and crashes.
Attachment #251168 -
Flags: superreview?(bugmail) → superreview-
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•18 years ago
|
||
I think wontfix per Jonas comment.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•