W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-speech-api@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Spec should say whether events bubble and are cancelable

From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:05:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFz-FYyRBtpOm2EZLnm3KRarEYXnYNMb5h1i2Wv6SYcqxmV8iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
You're right. I checked the spec and there's no reason either canceling or
bubbling should apply to these events. I'd say go ahead and add that text.

- Dominic

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
> wrote:
> > I thought that the objects receiving events are EventTargets, not Nodes,
> so
> > what would it even mean for them to bubble?
> Right, it doesn't make sense for us, but maybe the spec should say it
> anyway?
> > I'd prefer that they should be cancelable. It should be possible for a
> web
> > developer to attach multiple event listeners to the same target and have
> one
> > of them fully consume the event so that it doesn't get handled twice.
> Isn't the cancelable property used to decide if the event's default
> action can be prevented? For example, IndexedDB's error events are
> cancelable, because it is possible to prevent their default action of
> aborting the current transaction. Another example is the submit event
> that is fired when submitting forms; those are cancelable because it
> is possible to prevent the submittal of the form [1].
> In our case, the events don't have a default action, so what would it
> mean to cancel them?
> Thanks,
> Hans
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20110531/#event-flow-default-cancel
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 16:06:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:27 UTC