- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:05:43 -0700
- To: olli@pettay.fi
- Cc: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote: > On 03/12/2013 12:34 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> >> My main thought is that it's a pita to change the API at this time now >> it's unprefixed everywhere and we've been encouraging developers to >> use it in favor of mutation events. If Adam/Rafael/Olli/Jonas are >> willing to update WebKit/Gecko though I guess I don't really care. >> >> >> > We could keep the old behavior and extend it to support types. > I was going to mention this the other day - it works inter-operably today, so it seems like you probably don't want to break that. Simultaneously it does seem to me that the API is more sensible and less confusing - is there any reason not change the proposal such that the intent is to to deprecate the existing way and consider the new/proposed API as merely superceeding the old? Given that one is merely sugar on the other anyway - it should be possible to propose the change and augment/prollyfill the mapping I think and I see no reason you couldn't quickly roll that out natively given its simplicity. > But since the change isn't backward compatible (scripts using types > wouldn't work in > older browsers), I'd like to understand the need for the change. > > -Olli > -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 15:06:14 UTC