- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:50:38 -0700
- To: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, Olli@pettay.fi, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, rafaelw@chromium.org, rniwa@chromium.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, annevk@opera.com, arv@chromium.org
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> [Constructor(in MutationCallback callback)]
>>> interface MutationObserver {
>>> void observe(in Node target, in MutationObserverOptions options);
>>> void disconnect();
>>> };
>>
>> It would be nice to have both of these return the MutationObserver
>> rather than void, so you can chain calls.
>
> I don't think that makes sense for disconnect() (at least the version
> specced here), since it stops observation of all nodes so chaining
> wouldn't make sense. But I definitely see that chaining observe could
> be convenient.
// Resetting the observation list
observer
.disconnect()
.observe(node1,{...})
.observe(node2,{...});
~TJ
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 23:51:35 UTC