W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: DOM 2 Event question...

From: Glenn Adams <gadams@vgi.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:19:44 -0700
Message-ID: <007701bfdc7f$50e05660$47070001@vgi.com>
To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <Sam.Christiansen@trilogy.com>, <www-dom@w3.org>
OK. So which of the "may/should/must" applies? It sounds to me like you
are saying "may", in which case no content author can depend on this
behavior, meaning it is rather useless to specify since the author would
have to explicitly check if such behavior were implemented. If the
answer is "must" then that's a different story.

Regards, Glenn

----- Original Message -----
From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: "Glenn Adams" <gadams@vgi.com>
Cc: <Sam.Christiansen@trilogy.com>; <www-dom@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: DOM 2 Event question...


> >Or does this text say "in addition to setting an attribute recognized
to
> >represent an event handler, that implementors may/should/must (?)
*also*
> >create and register an equivalent EventListener on the node"?
>
> I believe that's the intent. The attribute is an attribute; that's
standard
> DOM behavior. A specialized DOM which wants to interpret setting this
> attribute as a request to bind a script to an event can do so as a
side
> effect.
>
>
> ______________________________________
> Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 15:17:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT