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: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:33:05 -0000
Message-ID: <012701c6486f$ab8e0960$2502a8c0@Snufkin>
To: <public-webapi@w3.org>

"Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> 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)
> Isn't that the case for every feature we are adding? That it means that 
> code written for DOM Level 3 will not necessarily work in DOM Level 2. I 
> don't see that as a problem. If it was I don't see the point in creating a 
> Level 3 at all.

There are certainly reasons to break the N+1 doesn't work in N, but they 
need to have very good reasons to do it, and I don't think the motivation is 
there on addEventListener - given that in the future use cases where you can 
define the ordering to some extent (fire this one before all others as I 
mentioned before) won't make DOM3ev, and the restriction now doesn't 
actually give us much, yet limits how we can move forward in a future spec.

Mostly it just seems unnecessary overdefinition of something that is working 
fine with the current definition.

>> You can in some current implementations, and there's nothing in any 
>> current specification that disallows this.
> The spec we are writing now, as proposed, disallows this. Do you think 
> that is a problem and will break existing content?

Possibly, there's certainly no interopable behaviour, so it may not be a bad 
thing to break any content that is relying on the various behaviour.


Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 20:34:10 UTC

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