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

Re: Mutation Observers: a replacement for DOM Mutation Events

From: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:46:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEvLGc+Yxa7KK1mzcLAM8vf+7MTRc2C1MJ3rHGmAh7yACn08YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, Olli@pettay.fi, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, rafaelw@chromium.org, rniwa@chromium.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, annevk@opera.com, arv@chromium.org
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
>> [Constructor(in MutationCallback callback)]
>> interface MutationObserver {
>>   void observe(in Node target, in MutationObserverOptions options);
>>   void disconnect();
>> };
>
> It would be nice to have both of these return the MutationObserver
> rather than void, so you can chain calls.

I don't think that makes sense for disconnect() (at least the version
specced here), since it stops observation of all nodes so chaining
wouldn't make sense.  But I definitely see that chaining observe could
be convenient.

- Adam
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 23:46:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT