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 10:17:31 +1000
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080724001731.GB7291@arc.mcc.id.au>

Jonas Sicking:
> I think this was a feature request to make it possible for the code  
> firing the custom event to specify whether the event should be  
> retargetted or stopped. The XBL spec can't specify all possible custom  
> events of course, so it does make sense, however I would ask what the  
> use case is.

With five minutes thought, I can’t come up with a good use case for
custom events that are stopped.  Definitely you want to be able to
dispatch events that are retargetted.  If a binding author doesn’t want
an event to leak out to the parent scope, then they can always use some
method of communication other than DOM events (since a custom event that
is stopped would by definition be used just for communication within a
single shadow scope).

So perhaps XBL2 should say that events that inherit from MutationEvent
are stopped and all other events are retargetted.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 00:22:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT