- From: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:44 +0100
- To: www-dom@w3.org
OK, I see. But, well, that's, too, even one more point for having had MutationObserver being a Node's member as it doesn't make any sense to observe a Node you don't have any more references to in code. So, I'd have suggested to have the whole MutationObserver interface being added to Node. ---------------------- "Anne van Kesteren" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:CADnb78jj-CeVd2BGjiqNDOQ=mNfM+4UUs6bzuntWKUcRrTCVUg@mail.gmail.com... On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com> wrote: > Moreover: If there is a MutationObserver attached to a node and if that > node > gets deleted from the DOM, the corresponding observer must automatically > disconnect and the internal “Node <> CallBackFunction” entry must be > removed > from the MutationObserver's internal dictionary. No you don't want that. If a node is removed from the DOM nodes can still be inserted into and in fact while it is removed it can be that it is being inserted someplace else. And yes, we're not going to change the current API. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 18:35:22 UTC