On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Alex Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> The old API is confusing. We can do better, so we should. I actually find the proposed syntax more confusing than the old syntax. For starters, I don't want to remember which options were types and which are not since a mutation observer that observes attributes but doesn't observe attribute old data is a different "type" of a mutation observer than the one that does observe old data. So while I understand some people may find the new syntax more appealing and easy to understand, I don't think it's a significant improvement over the old syntax that justifies the cost of changing the syntax at this point especially because it appears to be backward incompatible. I think most of us are open to new syntax if it's significantly better than the current syntax and is backward compatible. - R. Niwa
