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

Re: [whatwg] Mutation Observer arguments format

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:06:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CADnb78gr9rgzKw6TiTcjS0UZ4b1i+EgyeMxtFjj_a0WbZv+fcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, olli@pettay.fi, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that is the basic argument made time and again. It neglects the
costs. It takes away time from people that should probably work on
other stuff, it increases the API surface area and what needs to be
tested, and thereby increases the chance for mismatching functionality
across user agents. Making changes, even seemingly trivial ones,
across multiple independent engines is not something that should be
taken lightly.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 16:07:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 12 March 2013 16:07:02 GMT