[Bug 19414] Implement finishPropagation() method

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19414

--- Comment #4 from John A. Bilicki III <jab_creations@yahoo.com> ---
Compared to nearly a year's worth of work on just a rich editor alone a hundred
pages would still be a summary. I neither have the time nor desire to put a
test case together. What I have described should make plenty of logical sense
and besides this can be tested out on my blog with public comments at
jabcreations.com.

My point is simple, I shouldn't have to hack my code by using setTimeout when
it's very clear that finishPropagation is what should be used, that's a clear
conflict of the context in which it is used for. In fact I'm absolutely
astonished and dumbfounded that finishPropagation was not in DOM Level 1 for
goodness sakes. The fact that you even THOUGHT to suggest using setTimeout as
an acceptable route should stop you immediately in your tracks. I'm not telling
the computer to wait, I'm telling the computer to finish executing an event,
those are completely different contexts. Even if I was told finishPropagation
was slower than setTimeout I would still use  finishPropagation instead because
it is crystal clear that is what it is intended for. Using setTimeout is a
clearly undeniable hack used to get around the limitation of the DOM and when
ambiguities start to arise the specification can either clarify by doing what
is right or sit back and watch sites begin implementing hacks leaving bad
examples of code to live on for years while simultaneously misguiding people
who are learning when they come across it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.