On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:09 PM Mason Freed wrote:
> Thank you all! I will proceed cautiously. A few comments below...
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 6:37 AM Mike Taylor
> wrote:
>
>> I had a slight concern about the quilljs usage - even though they've
>> minted a new version, we know that
Thank you all! I will proceed cautiously. A few comments below...
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 6:37 AM Mike Taylor wrote:
> I had a slight concern about the quilljs usage - even though they've
> minted a new version, we know that getting sites to update is a major
> hurdle. That said, after reading
LGTM3.
I had a slight concern about the quilljs usage - even though they've
minted a new version, we know that getting sites to update is a major
hurdle. That said, after reading through the comments and linked issues
on upstream repos (react-quill, etc) - nobody seems to be describing any
LGTM2. This is extremely exciting. I hope that in a year, the deprecation
process is fully complete, and we get to enjoy deleting a lot of
code/specs/maybe tests.
I agree with your instinct to go to 100% directly with the 127 release.
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:18 AM Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
>
Hi Mason,
This is quite exciting! Mutation events is something I've long assumed we'd
have to live with forever, but your findings here are extremely
encouraging. Most compelling to me is (1) your analysis of UKM data and the
lack of clear breakage on any of the ~30 checked sites, and (2) that
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:00 AM Vladimir Levin wrote:
> I looked into the UKM data about three months ago, before I started the
>> experiment to disable all mutation events on Canary/Dev/Beta. I looked at
>> the top ~30 UKM hits and dug into the site's code to see what the usage
>> was. Many
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:56 AM Mason Freed wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:36 PM Vladimir Levin
> wrote:
>
>> I recall that some of this usage was feature detected: if mutation events
>> are supported, use them; otherwise, use something else. Unfortunately, that
>> makes it difficult to
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:36 PM Vladimir Levin wrote:
> I recall that some of this usage was feature detected: if mutation events
> are supported, use them; otherwise, use something else. Unfortunately, that
> makes it difficult to estimate the expected number of breakages. I agree
> though that
I recall that some of this usage was feature detected: if mutation events
are supported, use them; otherwise, use something else. Unfortunately, that
makes it difficult to estimate the expected number of breakages. I agree
though that it would be nice to understand the type of usage that still
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:03 PM Mason Freed wrote:
> Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org
>
> ExplainerNone
>
> Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/uievents/#legacy-event-types
>
> Summary
>
> Mutation Events, including `DOMSubtreeModified`, `DOMNodeInserted`,
> `DOMNodeRemoved`,
Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org
ExplainerNone
Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/uievents/#legacy-event-types
Summary
Mutation Events, including `DOMSubtreeModified`, `DOMNodeInserted`,
`DOMNodeRemoved`, `DOMNodeRemovedFromDocument`,
`DOMNodeInsertedIntoDocument`, and
11 matches
Mail list logo
