W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: ISSUE-42 (simpler custom events): Should we simplify custom events? [DOM3 Events]

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:41:51 +1000
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080723234151.GD6639@arc.mcc.id.au>

Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker:
> ISSUE-42 (simpler custom events): Should we simplify custom events? [DOM3 Events]
> I'd like to make another suggestion about DOM 3 custom events; this time
> a great simplification.

This simplification to CustomEvent is already in the spec:


> If specifying whether custom events should be retargetted or stopped at
> shadow scope boundaries under sXBL is a desirable feature (and I think
> it is), then a separate interface to set this information is probably
> the way to go.
>   interface EventXBL {
>     attribute boolean retargetable;
>   };

This functionality isn’t in XBL2, although an EventXBL interface does


XBL2 currently says:

  The action taken (retarget vs. stop) is specific to the event type. In
  general, UI events must be retargeted and mutation events must be
  stopped. Exceptions to the rule are noted below. The goal of this
  retargeting or stopping is to stop outer shadow scopes from being
  exposed to nodes from inner shadow scopes, and to stop outer shadow
  scopes from getting apparently meaningless events that only make sense
  in the context of inner shadow scopes.
   — http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/#event2

A definitive list of which event types should be retargetted and which
should be stopped doesn’t seem to be given, though.  It’s unclear
whether a CustomEvent (or a plain Event) should be retargetted or

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 23:42:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC