W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Mutation events replacement

From: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:15:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4E0E54F8.1050506@mozilla.com>
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
CC: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Olli@pettay.fi, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 7/1/11 4:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com 
> <mailto:rafaelw@google.com>> wrote:
>     If you want to discover mutations to nodes while outside the tree,
>     then having a single subtree observer isn't sufficient. You'll need an
>     attribute observer registered on all elements reachable from the root.
>     I believe this is the same with both proposals.
> I don't think that's what he meant.  He's saying that it's useful to 
> distinguish a node that's been removed from the document in order to 
> insert it to somewhere else (i.e. the node was attached to the 
> document prior to the insertion) from a node that was not attached to 
> the document prior to the insertion.
> - Ryosuke
Yes, that's mostly what I meant.

It looks like I responded off-list to Rafael when I meant to do a reply 
all. Here's what I said:

I'm not trying to discover mutations on nodes outside the tree.  I'm 
trying to explain why you cannot correctly model node moves with pairs 
of remove/insert mutation events.

Note that when I say "move" I only care about the case where appendChild 
or insertBefore() is called on a node that is already in the document.

Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 23:15:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:22 UTC