- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:25:22 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>>
>> <div class="overflow">
>> <script event="click">
>> // "this" is the parent div element.
>> // "event" is the current event object.
>> if (event.target.className != 'more')
>> return;
>> if (this.moreOpened)
>> this.closeMore();
>> ...
>> </script>
>> </div>
>
>
> This looks an awful lot like what XBL does (it uses <handler> elements for
> this).
>
> People had some issues with this, which is why XBL2 had moved to a single
> script blob that just set things like the onclick attribute.
>
> I assume you've looked into what these issues were? At least ask hyatt and
> hixie, please.
That's what I was hoping to do by posting :)
>
>
>> * It's declarative and intuitively logical
>> * The script does not have to run (or even compile) until event fires
>> * The author does not need to imperatively go find the element in the
>> tree to attach an event handler to it
>
>
> #3 is achievable with other approaches (e.g. just having a <script> that
> runs with "this" set to the element in question or something).
Oh, like <script scoped> or something?
>
> #2 is true, but would be equally true with:
>
> this.onclick = function() { .... }
>
> I think. The only thing the UA would have to do there is syntax-check the
> function, which I think is desirable to do anyway for error reporting
> purposes.
I am pretty sure we'd have to run script there.
>
> -Boris
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:29:33 UTC