- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:09:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11129 --- Comment #17 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> 2011-01-27 10:09:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/804 > So that could be written close the way the example 1 or 3 in > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=947 Ah. I assumed that change and input didn't bubble. That makes my case weaker indeed. > > You need a capturing event listener for that, which is not available as markup > > and many authors who know enough to use event handler attributes don't know > > that capturing event listeners exist or how they work. > And why exactly do you need capturing event listeners? Since change and input bubble, I don't. I do need to name="" my <output>s and put the logic further away from the <output>s, but that's not a big deal. > > If you have several event handler content attributes you would need to call all > > of them. It's more convenient to dispatch an event. > So why would it be more convenient to split the code to several > forminput/change event handlers than just have one function? Each <output> updates its own value when something changes. Just a different coding style. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 10:09:54 UTC