[Bug 28444] [Shadow]: Make event retargeting optional

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28444

--- Comment #3 from Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to Anne from comment #2)
> Yeah, which is why perhaps we should only do retargeting if the tree is
> explicitly closed. (Isolated would also have to do it of course.)

This suggestion is interesting, but it is orthogonal to the complexity concern.
I would still need extra branch points in the retargeting algos in order to
account for nested trees that interleave the setting with and without
retargeting (whether or not coupled to the closed/open setting), plus the extra
transitive complexity of managing insertion points.


> That seems like a much more logical model and allows for event.path and
> event.target to be consistent. The current approach seems a lot like the
> originalTarget approach from XBL.

Can you explain a bit more why event.path seems bad? As far as I can tell, it
works well for consumers with event delegation needs.

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

Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 17:42:52 UTC