- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 00:29:34 +0200
- To: "Mike Wilson" <mikewse@hotmail.com>, "'DOM public list'" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Mon, 04 May 2009 23:08:34 +0200, Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chaals, > Looking back on > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/320 > I see some suggestions from Jonas. Are these the proposed > changes you are referring to? Yep. Sorry, that email sat in my outbox long enough to lose context :( cheers Chaals > Best regards > Mike Wilson > > Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> In summary, we implemented these ages ago. We think the >> proposed changes >> would make the events more performant but less useful. >> >> If mutation events simply went away it would improve performance, of >> course. But there are some real use cases for them, as they are. So we >> are not sure if the proposed changes are actually a good idea. >> >> The use cases we identified are for script libraries, since one >> library doesn't necessarily know what other scripts are running, and >> writing a script that checks what else is running seems prohibitive. >> >> (There is also the ARIA example, where certain attributes need to be >> watched in some way. These could be done in a way other than mutation >> events, but that discussion is orthogonal I think). >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> -- >> Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk >> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com >> >> > -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 03:32:40 UTC