- From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:08:34 +0200
- To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'DOM public list'" <www-dom@w3.org>
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? 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 > >
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 21:09:23 UTC