W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: More use-cases for mutation events replacement

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:47:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+Axnytp1s3TzGFVoVTMfgJj-Ua8+E6Bj8KGcv4A6EcqJcXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>
Cc: W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> I assume you are referring to the NodeWatch proposal from Microsoft.
>
> 1st draft:
>    http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Selector-based_Mutation_Events
>
> 2nd draft:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/MutationReplacement#NodeWatch_.28A_Microsoft_Proposal.29

I wasn't aware of that proposal.  It seems like we came up with the
same basic idea independently.

> I think the utility of this proposal is unnecessarily limited by the
> restriction of one watcher per node.
> Also, it is not clear that handlers would be called before page reflow /
> repaint.

Yeah, those are two immediate problems I see.  Also (based on looking
at the second draft, not the first):

* I'm not sure what the use-case is for a minimum frequency.  If it's
not going to be really really common, it shouldn't be part of the API,
because authors can always fake it with setTimeout() and some globals.
* I don't think we want to return a handle -- don't other APIs let you
unwatch by just passing the same callback you originally passed?  That
makes more sense, IMO.
* It says it throws an INDEX_SIZE_ERR if the minimum frequency is
negative, but it's an unsigned long, so WebIDL already specifies
different behavior if it's negative (it wraps).
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 18:47:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT