W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: Can Dispatch canDispatch()?

From: Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:43:25 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, DOM mailing list <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <49142F02149340458FDD20841AD0AD56095156@TK5EX14MBXW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I also agree that the canDispatch API, while it has potential, should be removed from the spec. The use cases raised on this thread are interesting; detecting what user agent supports what events (though most user-agents will have event-handler DOM attributes defined on the appropriate objects for many event types). It might be worth looking into a hasEvent API to address some of those use-cases, but I don't consider that a blocking issue for DOM L3 Events.

-Travis

-----Original Message-----
From: www-dom-request@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:30 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: Doug Schepers; DOM mailing list
Subject: Re: Can Dispatch canDispatch()?

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
> Hi, Folks-
>
> A little more digging (and pestering PLH) shows that canDispatch() was
> added because MS didn't want to implement some aspects of Mutation
> events [1], so the decision was made to allow authors to discover if a
> particular event is supported by the implementation [2] (look for "willImplementationDispatch").
>
> It does seem that, once introduced, it was repurposed for the more
> general case, such as detecting if a Custom Event would be dispatched
> [3].  I am not sure these are quite the same use case, and I think
> this introduces even more ambiguity into canDispatch().
>
> To me, this seems like evidence that we should drop canDispatch() for
> now, and approach the problem from a different angle, with proper use
> cases and requirements.
>
> If I don't hear objections in the next two weeks, I will drop this
> method from the next draft.  I have already marked it as At Risk.
>
> Sounds like a good decision to me. I agree with this reasoning.

Same here. Though Olli is a better voice for mozilla.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 18:44:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:03 GMT