> We changed the specification following a comment from > Ralph Levien during the CR phase: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2000JanMar/0289.html That shows that several folk raised the issue of that change introducing an asymmetry with respect to addEventListener(), which should have been dealt with at the same time. I think the corresponding change on the addEventListener side is a guarantee that a listener added to the current node _will_ be invoked as appropriate. That still leaves the order of event delivery loosely defined, but doesn't create a surprise in the API model. (And it'd certainly reduce implementation complexity.) - DaveReceived on Monday, 20 August 2001 18:41:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:24:54 GMT