W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [dom] mutation observers and HTML

From: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:51:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEvLGcJJMREyBsEZOdLdFKkXLb8tghKihKHZ=YAGof=n5hwQEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: olli@pettay.fi
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-dom@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> On 02/17/2012 04:41 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea still is that HTML is responsible for invoking the callbacks
>>> and emptying the MutationRecord queues, right? Have you thought about
>>> what HTML has to say yet Adam?
>>>
>>
>> HTML spec should probably define what a microtask means
>> and then mutation observer spec should just use that mechanism.
>> Microtask ends when the outermost script execution of
>> innermost task ends, or if there is no script execution, when
>> the innermost task ends.
>
> The other thing required is an addition to
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#processing-model-2
> (between steps 3 & 4, probably) to deliver MutationRecords at the end
> of every task (if there's anything there). This handles cases, such as
> editing, where DOM is mutated without any script execution.

Rafael points out that you've already included this timing ("..when
the innermost task ends"). Ignore my previous message.

- Adam
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 18:52:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:09 GMT