[whatwg] Mutation Observer arguments format

Brian Kardell bkardell at gmail.com
Tue Mar 12 08:05:43 PDT 2013

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay at helsinki.fi>wrote:

> On 03/12/2013 12:34 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thoughts?
>> My main thought is that it's a pita to change the API at this time now
>> it's unprefixed everywhere and we've been encouraging developers to
>> use it in favor of mutation events. If Adam/Rafael/Olli/Jonas are
>> willing to update WebKit/Gecko though I guess I don't really care.
> We could keep the old behavior and extend it to support types.

I was going to mention this the other day - it works inter-operably today,
so it seems like you probably don't want to break that.  Simultaneously it
does seem to me that the API is more sensible and less confusing - is there
any reason not change the proposal such that the intent is to to deprecate
the existing way and consider the new/proposed API as merely superceeding
the old?  Given that one is merely sugar on the other anyway - it should be
possible to propose the change and augment/prollyfill the mapping I think
and I see no reason you couldn't quickly roll that out natively given its

> But since the change isn't backward compatible (scripts using types
> wouldn't work in
> older browsers), I'd like to understand the need for the change.
> -Olli

Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com

More information about the whatwg mailing list