- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:58:28 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: >> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient" >> > benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry about >> > whether >> > the nodes exist yet that makes CSS more convenient. >> >> Note that this benefit is preserved. Moving or inserting an element >> in the DOM should apply CAS to it. >> >> The only thing we're really losing in the dynamic-ness is that other >> types of mutations to the DOM don't change what CAS does, and some of >> the dynamic selectors like :hover don't do anything. > > > Ah, I missed the "plus a mutation observer that reruns the mutations on any > nodes added to the document" bit. Ok, so this timing is very specific then. > It would get applied at the microtask time, not at the time the DOM was > modified. Would it get applied before or after mutation observers get > called? Seems like you'd want it to execute first. Calling it after mutation > observers would require an extra delivery of mutations after the attributes > are applied, which seems silly. I presume there's an ordering of mutation observers, such that ones defined earlier in document history get the notifications first, or somesuch? If so, CAS should indeed run before any author-defined observers. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 20:59:17 UTC