Re: DOMSubtreeModified

* Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>Right.  What point?  Under what conditions can a UA claim compliance?  If all 
>DOMSubtreeModified events are queued up and then fired off a 50ms timer, is that 
>a compliant UA?  What if it's a 50 second timer?  50 year timer?  This issue is 
>not really resolved by the latest draft (though it would seem to me that the 
>answer per that draft is "depends on what 'rapid succession'" means).

That depends; if DOMSubtreeModified is used only to provide some auto-
save function in an editor a 5 minute delay can be reasonable, and if
you run Mozilla on a ten years old PC and insert a large DocumentFrag-
ment into a document, and DOMSubtreeModified occurs only after the
whole fragment has been inserted, it might well take some minutes as-
well. In the typical browser implementations authors are propbably un-
likely to appreciate if they get it only after the screen has been up-
dated with out of sync data.

You could also make a XHR implementation that transfers data at 1 bit
per hour; while such an implementation would be conforming, it would
be practically useless for all intents and purposes and authors would
just use <iframe> content loading or whatever instead.

>I understand what the goal of having DOMSubtreeModified is.  I'm just
>don't think it's well-defined enough to implement as things stand.

So what is it that needs to be defined? The precise moment when the
event must occur at the latest? As you note above, the draft already
has a vague reference to "rapid succession" that sets expectations;
why would it need to say more?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 12:07:34 UTC