On 7/1/11 4:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafa...@google.com
<mailto:rafa...@google.com>> wrote:
If you want to discover mutations to nodes while outside the tree,
then having a single subtree observer isn't sufficient. You'll need an
attribute observer registered on all elements reachable from the root.
I believe this is the same with both proposals.
I don't think that's what he meant. He's saying that it's useful to
distinguish a node that's been removed from the document in order to
insert it to somewhere else (i.e. the node was attached to the
document prior to the insertion) from a node that was not attached to
the document prior to the insertion.
- Ryosuke
Yes, that's mostly what I meant.
It looks like I responded off-list to Rafael when I meant to do a reply
all. Here's what I said:
I'm not trying to discover mutations on nodes outside the tree. I'm
trying to explain why you cannot correctly model node moves with pairs
of remove/insert mutation events.
Note that when I say "move" I only care about the case where appendChild
or insertBefore() is called on a node that is already in the document.
David
