- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:47:15 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Apr 20, 2006, at 02:31, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Two options:
>
> 1. never send the individual mutation events (and hope that the
> implementation does support the MutationNameEvents feature), or
>
> 2. send the individual mutation events only if renameNode falls back
> to node replacement.
>
> I'm not sure that I have a preference, but (2) is easier to implement.
As an author I would much prefer (1), as it means consistency. Option
2 is also a bunch of events, remove element, add element, set
attributes (the two latter stages being having invertible orders,
which has different effects on bubbling, etc.).
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 12:47:13 UTC