- From: Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:26:26 +0300
- To: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 07/09/2015 06:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote: >> I think there's a big opportunity to substantially improve scroll >> performance on the web in the relatively short term by doing something >> incremental. I.e. I'm pretty sure I can get major scroll-blocking libraries >> like Google Analytics to opt into the pattern proposed here in a relatively >> short timeframe. I'm much less sure I could get them to switch to a >> completely new event API in any sort of reasonable timeframe. > > Either way they need to branch their code, no? > > >> What do you think about an incremental path? I don't see any fundamental >> reason that things need to change drastically. > > Overloading a boolean argument with a dictionary seems bad. And if we > are to have a new API anyway, we might as well pick the better names. > I'm a bit worried that figuring out what the "new better API" might take quite a bit more time than adding something to the existing one. There is https://github.com/RByers/EventListenerOptions/issues/12 open for the proposed API change, if we want to be more careful with backwards compatibility. > >> If we can get consensus on the basic approach, then I'd be happy to rework >> my proposal in the form of a pull-request and move all issue tracking to >> whatwg/dom. There's probably no point in doing that until we have an >> agreement on the basic API shape, right? > > Fair. > >
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 15:27:09 UTC