For me if we can just get the mapped attributes that would be a win. Right now we have the ability to set but not read internal state using attributes. This leads to some confusion, because it makes attributes uni-directional, and not representative of state. http://jsfiddle.net/ZUMze/ If such assumptions are made, that attributes are uni-directional, and attributes *do not* represent state; In what case would someone listen for attribute changes with MutationObservers, since they are not part of state and may in fact be used as a misdirection attack if someone knows you are listening for changes, but have set the internal state to bad values while the attribute looks to be valid. Subtree sandboxing would help to stop this, but it is not currently present. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > From: Anne van Kesteren [annevk@annevk.nl] > > > Given that this internal state is a per-node affair, I'm not sure we can > provide a coherent API. > > Well, as long as such state is exposed via changing properties, I think > `Object.observe` is the ideal coherent API. But that's obviously a ways > out, and yes, until then I guess we can just keep adding events everywhere. > > Thanks, I think the tree-modification vs. internal state distinction was > important, and for me at least clarifying. >Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 15:51:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:03 UTC