On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/8/15 1:42 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>> That actually seems pretty similar to what we have, ours is in the form
>> of:
>>
>> Node#insertedInto(Node insertionPoint)
>> Node#removedFrom(Node insertionPoint)
>
> To be clear, ours is also in t
On May 9, 2015 9:41 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > On 5/8/15 1:42 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> >> That actually seems pretty similar to what we have, ours is in the form
> >> of:
> >>
> >> Node#insertedInto(Node insertionPoint)
> >> Node
I agree we badly need the primitives, but it seems to me like there is
potentially an easier and maybe even bigger win in making it more
straightforward for developers to reuse existing patterns (like the one you
described for "button" earlier) than in explaining the existing patterns
and allowing
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Alice Boxhall wrote:
> > I definitely acknowledge is= may not be the ideal solution to the latter
> > problem - it definitely has some holes in it, especially when you start
> > adding author shadow roots
On 5/9/15 12:40 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
So that seems clearly wrong (in the specification)... Are descendants
notified in tree order?
In Gecko, yes.
Note that running script during these insert/remove notifications is not
OK, so anything that needs to run script has to do it "later" (for
