W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 1999

comments on DOM2 Event Model

From: Jean-Michel Leon <jmleon@Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 23 Feb 1999 16:51:34 -0800
To: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <lm0u2wcoc89.fsf@eng.sun.com>

[ the following suggestions are based on WD-DOM-Level-2-19990222. ]

Event Flow

this paragraph suggest that there is a top-down dispatch of events, but
this dispatch mechanism is not specified. Plus, although it seems quite
natural for UI events, because you can defined how theses events are
dispatched down the DOM tree, using x,y coordinates, or knowing which Node
has the focus, I'm not sure what this means for other kind of events
(logical & mutation events). Maybe 'dispatching' should be defined only for
x,y related events

I think Event Flow should describe both 'Dispatching' and 'Bubbling', and
both of these should be detailed like bubbling is.


Once you've described how dispatching works, you realize that the capturing
stuff is not well defined anymore. In fact (especially since this is
currently using the same interfaces) 'capturing' simply means 'dispatching
cancellation', just like you have 'bubbling cancellation'. I think this
should be symmetrical: you should either have a reserved term for 'bubbling
cancellation', or you should not talk about 'capturing'.

I also have one special grief against Event.cancelCapture, which is a poor
name for specifying 'please do not propagate this event to my
descendents'. I'd rather see something like 'cancelDispatch', which would
be more consistent to 'cancelBubble'.

The bottom line is that I think the event flow should talk more about
dispatching, and dispatching and bubbling should be more symmetrical.

Event Cancellation

what's the rationale behind using a property for cancellation instead of a
method ?

this seems more a risk than a feature to me, because it forbids to specify
cancellation policy when more than one listener are set. Typically, using
the existing mechanism, you cannot predict what happens if one listener
sets this attribute to true and the other sets it to false. 

I can see two different options that would be much easier to specify:

    - use a method (cancelBubble() or cancel()), and specify that
    bubbling is cancelled if at least one of the listeners calls this

    - use handleEvent return value to specify that bubbling is cancelled
    if at least one of the listeners return 'true'

Listening vs. Capturing

Right now, if I set a listener on a given Node, there is no way to know if
the listener is triggered during the dispatch phase, or the bubbling phase
(well, you implicitly know it, because you set the useCapture flag
accordingly to what you want this listener to do - but nothing prevents you
to try to use a listener designed for capture as a bubbling listener).

This also prevents you to set one Listener both as 'capturer' and
'listener', since the same method is going to be called in both contexts.

I think there should be a distinction somewhere for these different
contexts. I can see two different options:

   - define different Listener types (you would add Filters for listening
   to the dispatch phase, and you would add Listeners for listening to the
   the bubbling phase).
    so EventTarget would be:

    interface EventTarget {
        void addEventFilter(in DOMString type, 
                            in boolean postProcess, 
			    in EventFilter listener);

        void removeEventFilter(in DOMString type, 
                               in boolean postProcess, 
			       in EventFilter listener);

        void addEventListener(in DOMString type, 
                              in boolean postProcess, 
			      in EventListener listener);

        void removeEventListener(in DOMString type, 
                                 in boolean postProcess, 
			         in EventListener listener);

   so we could have:

   interface EventListener {
       void handleEvent(in Event event);

   interface EventFilter {
       void filterEvent(in Event event);

    and Event could simply have a cancel() method, specified as 'cancelling
    the event flow (both dispatching and bubbling) as soon as one listener
    calls it.

    - have two methods on Listeners, one for capturing, and one for

   interface EventListener {
       void handleEvent(in Event event);
       void filterEvent(in Event event);

    But this would imply calling the filtering method many times when it's
    not required.


the spec should say what happens if a listener removes itself, while it is
handling an event. 

On the same topic, it should also say what happens to the Event Flow if you
remove the dispatching node (or any ancestor) inside an event handler.

addEventListener / postProcess

I'd like to understand what's behind this. My feeling is that when you
write a script, you are relying on an unknown DOM implementation. So how
would you know if you should set postProcess to true or not ?


these objects are mentioned when describing. I think this is linked to my
question about postProcessing: whether we have an idea what a DOM
implementation is doing (what the default actions are), and the spec should
mention where/when and how these actions take in the event flow, or actions
are not well defined, and the spec shouldn't mention them. My feeling is
that something's missing here, maybe it's just an entry in the terminology.

Mutating Events

the spec should say if events can be mutated (their properties can be
changed) by a filter or a handler, and what effect this has on the event
flow. Typically, what happens if I, as an event filter, modify the X,V
coordinates of an event ? Does this modifies subsequent dispatch or not ?

Misc questions

can a script generate an event from a given node ?

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 1999 19:52:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:27 UTC