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: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:19:40 -0800
Message-ID: <4418AF1C.1070607@sicking.cc>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org

Jim Ley wrote:
> "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
>> So I don't think this is a valid concern.
> It's a a very big concern for content authors, we can't know what 
> environment we're running in, that means we will always be doing the 2 
> behaviour, this makes the 3 behaviour irrelevant.

If you don't know which environment you are running in then you can 
simply avoid relying on the order. That is no different from today so I 
don't see this as a problem.

>> I disagree. Leaving the ordering unspecified will likely result in 
>> content accidentally depending on the ordering of whatever UA it is 
>> tested in.
> I think you need to point to large amounts of code that does this, ie 
> it's a genuine problem, I do not believe it is.

I agree with Maciej here, leaving things undefined and saying that 
people shouldn't depend on it should always be avoided because way too 
few authors will obey that. Most people test in a browser and then 
expect it to work in all browsers.

Additionally, stopImmediatePropagation is a very dangerous function if 
order is not defined. So if we want stopImmediatePropagation we must 
define an order.

The one usecase for stopImmediatePropagation that was brought up so far 
was XBL. In XBL handlers are fired in the order that bindings are 
derived and one binding calling stopImmediatePropagation will stop all 
further derived bindings.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 00:19:36 UTC

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