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

Re: [whatwg] Mutation Observer arguments format

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:45:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CANr5HFWnqYtYfCjo_m1BxzWr59xed-d3oYqwNvCA0+4DrA9GWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Cc: Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, "Olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Mar 15, 2013 6:58 PM, "Ryosuke Niwa" <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
>
> > The old API is confusing. We can do better, so we should.
>
> I actually find the proposed syntax more confusing than the old syntax.
>
> For starters, I don't want to remember which options were types and which
are not since a mutation observer that observes attributes but doesn't
observe attribute old data is a different "type" of a mutation observer
than the one that does observe old data.
>
> So while I understand some people may find the new syntax more appealing
and easy to understand, I don't think it's a significant improvement over
the old syntax that justifies the cost of changing the syntax at this point
especially because it appears to be backward incompatible.

It's not. The old option format can continue to be supported.

> I think most of us are open to new syntax if it's significantly better
than the current syntax and is backward compatible.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 08:45:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 18 March 2013 08:45:47 GMT