- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 04:37:17 -0700
- To: Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>
- Cc: Sergey Ilinsky <castonet@yahoo.co.uk>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com> wrote: >> Other thoughts: >> 1) If I am the author to the scripts that modify document, then I am >> indeed aware of what gets changed. If I am not the author, I shall then not >> have been notified on the change. The use cases such as "debugger" do not >> count here - it would be possible to offer required APIs (such as DOM >> Mutation Events) to them only, without needing the API to populate on the >> page. And this is not a sucrifice to run page 50% slower caused by the >> Mutation Events turned on on behalf of a debugger, right? >> > > Use cases: > - user triggered input, like when using contentEditable/designMode We should fix this by adding better events for user input into contentEditable/designMode. Using mutation events for this is both unnecessarily hard to use (I'd imagine), as well as unperformant (for sure). > - 3rd party libraries which want to know if the document mutates out of > their context > - 3rd party scripts (like ad scripts, or link to social networking or > sharing sites) that change the document and the document wants to keep some > sanity in it Can you explain these more in detail? / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 11:38:09 UTC