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

Re: [whatwg] Mutation Observer arguments format

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:22:40 -0700
Message-id: <EA2829F2-C67E-437C-842D-04BE63090424@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "Olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>
On Mar 12, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does it make sense?  Do you feel like I am hand-waving away any of your
>> concerns?  I hope not because the idea there is precisely to help address
>> concerns like these (as well as many others).
> 
> It makes sense and is doable, but given finite resources it's on
> balance with everything else we work on. E.g. the effort I put into
> drafting a new API and figure out the details will take away time from
> improving Fetch and XMLHttpRequest. The effort Adam will put into
> implementing the change and making sure it's tested will take away
> time from him working on HTML templates. Etc.
> 
> And that's not counting that we then have two ways of doing the same
> thing. That we need to update documentation. That it's not backwards
> compatible.

I agree with Anne and others that the proposed API change is not worth the cost we have to pay at this point in time.

- R. Niwa
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 05:24:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 14 March 2013 05:24:14 GMT