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

Re: [dom] DocumentFragment mutations

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:06:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4F6B31FA.1050309@helsinki.fi>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>

On 03/22/2012 02:48 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Hey Adam,
>
> So I looked again at these algorithms after our IRC discussion.
>
> 1. I managed to avoid some of the DocumentFragment-related duplication
> as discussed: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/rev/ac51d41fb636
>
> 2. I did not find transient observers actually requiring additional text
> because concept-node-insert references concept-node-remove for the nodes
> removed from DocumentFragment nodes and concept-node-remove then takes
> care of adding the transient observers.
>
> Now having fully defined all this and given point 2 above it seems to me
> we can inline the "add a transient observer" algorithm. Do you agree? It
> also seems to me we can either remove the "transient observer" concept
> in favor of just having the "transient" variable or the other way around.
I prefer having 'transient observers', since it describes quite well
what is happening. There are actually temporary observers staying alive
until the end of microtask (or task).


-Olli

>
> Cheers,
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:08:24 GMT

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