- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:47:04 -0400
- To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>
- Cc: W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au> wrote: > I assume you are referring to the NodeWatch proposal from Microsoft. > > 1st draft: > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Selector-based_Mutation_Events > > 2nd draft: > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/MutationReplacement#NodeWatch_.28A_Microsoft_Proposal.29 I wasn't aware of that proposal. It seems like we came up with the same basic idea independently. > I think the utility of this proposal is unnecessarily limited by the > restriction of one watcher per node. > Also, it is not clear that handlers would be called before page reflow / > repaint. Yeah, those are two immediate problems I see. Also (based on looking at the second draft, not the first): * I'm not sure what the use-case is for a minimum frequency. If it's not going to be really really common, it shouldn't be part of the API, because authors can always fake it with setTimeout() and some globals. * I don't think we want to return a handle -- don't other APIs let you unwatch by just passing the same callback you originally passed? That makes more sense, IMO. * It says it throws an INDEX_SIZE_ERR if the minimum frequency is negative, but it's an unsigned long, so WebIDL already specifies different behavior if it's negative (it wraps).
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 18:47:51 UTC