Re: [whatwg/dom] Disconnect single target instead of all (#126)

> Record queue for both case probably should be cleared.

I think removing only the records for the unobserved nodes makes sense.

> I would propose adding an unobserve() method to parallel observe(), rather than change disconnect().

That could work. As end user, I don't care if it is `unobserve(node)` or `disconnect(node)`, as long as they work the same (stop observing the node, and any following observer callback will not contain records for that node). `unobserve` sounds better as a reciprocal to `observe`.

> As for the record queue, I'd still need records from the unobserved subtree, so would prefer they remain

I think that is confusing. If we unobserve, no future records should be callbacked, to keep things simple.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/126#issuecomment-318555824