On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Dave Raggett <d...@w3.org> wrote: > On 22/07/11 02:26, Adam Klein wrote: >> >> This is only complex because you're coalescing the mutations, right? >> In Rafael's original proposal, each mutation would result in a single >> immutable mutation record, so the semantics would be to "deliver" (by >> appending to a queue associated with each observer) a mutation record >> to any currently-registered observers. >> >> Or is there some other concern with beginning notifications partway >> through a task? > > I would suggest avoiding coalescing mutations altogether! > > But if you are going to, *don't* coalesce mutations when the resulting DOM > tree is dependent on the order in which those mutations took place. This is > critical to distributed editing applications.
The DOM should have no such behavior. The only exception to this rule that I know of is <script> elements. They execute their contained script the first time they are inserted into a Document, but don't "undo" that action when removed (for obvious reasons), nor do they redo it when inserted again. / Jonas
