W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2013

Re: [whatwg] Mutation Observer arguments format

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:05:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CADC=+jdu63DL1j46+MN5pBkwpFNf2akOr8zTinXqUPE3qvW8YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: olli@pettay.fi
Cc: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:

> On 03/12/2013 12:34 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> My main thought is that it's a pita to change the API at this time now
>> it's unprefixed everywhere and we've been encouraging developers to
>> use it in favor of mutation events. If Adam/Rafael/Olli/Jonas are
>> willing to update WebKit/Gecko though I guess I don't really care.
>>
>>
>>
> We could keep the old behavior and extend it to support types.
>

I was going to mention this the other day - it works inter-operably today,
so it seems like you probably don't want to break that.  Simultaneously it
does seem to me that the API is more sensible and less confusing - is there
any reason not change the proposal such that the intent is to to deprecate
the existing way and consider the new/proposed API as merely superceeding
the old?  Given that one is merely sugar on the other anyway - it should be
possible to propose the change and augment/prollyfill the mapping I think
and I see no reason you couldn't quickly roll that out natively given its
simplicity.


> But since the change isn't backward compatible (scripts using types
> wouldn't work in
> older browsers), I'd like to understand the need for the change.
>
> -Olli
>



-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 15:06:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 12 March 2013 15:06:15 GMT