On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafa...@google.com> wrote:
> We've been prototyping more useful higher-level semantics on top of > what we've proposed (akin to what you're asking about). In general, if > you want to know something correct about what happened to a tree from > state (a) to state (b) you need to register an observer at all nodes > in the tree for the types of changes you care about. Subtree > observation isn't sufficient for this purpose exactly for the reason > you are observing: you don't hear about when something that was in > tree was removed, modified, then returned. > Why? If I have a list of mutations that happened in a subtree with information such as containerNode, offset at which the node was inserted or removed, shouldn't I be able to tell exactly what had happened? We've prototyped the semantics of our proposal and are working on > implementing higher-level observation semantics on top of them. It's > still work in progress, but you can get an idea of what's required. > I'll add that being able to annotate a sequence of mutations with higher-level semantics will be super useful. For example, if execCommand or editing actions make a bunch of modifications, they should all be grouped together and and label as such. Also, a widget library can label all mutations caused by the creation of a widget to avoid shooting itself or inform other components and libraries on the page. - Ryosuke
