- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:45:00 -0700
- To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Cc: Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, "Olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Mar 15, 2013 6:58 PM, "Ryosuke Niwa" <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > > > The old API is confusing. We can do better, so we should. > > I actually find the proposed syntax more confusing than the old syntax. > > For starters, I don't want to remember which options were types and which are not since a mutation observer that observes attributes but doesn't observe attribute old data is a different "type" of a mutation observer than the one that does observe old data. > > So while I understand some people may find the new syntax more appealing and easy to understand, I don't think it's a significant improvement over the old syntax that justifies the cost of changing the syntax at this point especially because it appears to be backward incompatible. It's not. The old option format can continue to be supported. > I think most of us are open to new syntax if it's significantly better than the current syntax and is backward compatible. > > - R. Niwa >
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 08:45:46 UTC