W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > March 2006

Re: ACTION-70: Define the scope chain of onFoo events reference issue-1

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:21:14 -0000
Message-ID: <004501c647b5$9b2f2a50$2502a8c0@Snufkin>
To: <public-webapi@w3.org>

"Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
> It is better for  interoperability if the order is defined instead of 
> arbitrary, code  tested in one UA will be more likely to work in others.

That is exactly what I mean by backwards compatibility, you're introducing 
stricter requirements in later UA's meaning that authoring to the spec 
breaks compatibility in DOM 2 implementations (because the author can now 
_rely_ on a particular ordering, rather than having to use the simple code 
methods to create an ordering)

Without use cases for requiring an order, it shouldn't be done. It probably 
should've in 2, but wasn't presumably for reasons, what's changed about the 
reasons then?

> That's an interesting idea but clearly requires the ordering to be 
> defined

Certainly, however I don't see anything else that does, so without that, 
there's no need.

>> so should foo.onclick fire before or after foo.setAttribute 
>> ('onclick',... ) ?   :-)
> Only one of them will fire, and whichever is set last wins. There's  no 
> need to define relative ordering since you can't have both at the  same 
> time.

You can in some current implementations, and there's nothing in any current 
specification that disallows this.

Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 22:22:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:20 UTC