Re: [whatwg/dom] Consider adding localNameFilter to MutationObserver (#398)

> Depending on which implementation strategy is chosen for integrating these features with attributeFilter, I believe it would be best to run each filter, one by one, on the nodes observed in the mutation event, asserting that either addedNodes or removedNodes list is not empty between after each filter that is applied.

Yeah, we just need to decide what to do here in order to proceed with this proposal.

> Regardless of what is favored for mixing filters (union or intersection), I think it should be consistent for all combinations of filters.
> 
> Personally, I believe intersection is easier to use.

I tend to agree although it's unclear what happens to CihldNode observation when an attribute filter is specified. I guess we'd ignore it for child changes?


-- 
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/398#issuecomment-608643912