W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Proposal to ammend the composition event spec.

From: 坊野 博典 <hbono@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:35:36 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhL4GUPo5OQZYfkkjwmuZSr0AXrqfxdYL6l0RW@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Danilatos <daniel@danilatos.com>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Greetings,

Even though your proposal looks great, I would like to clarify one
point: section 6.2.4 (*1) writes "cancelling the default action of a
keydown event must prevent its respective textInput event from being
generated." If I understand your proposal correctly, your proposal
seems cancelling the default action of a textInput event does not
affect its respective compositionend event. Therefore, your proposal
implies canceling the default action of a keydown event does not
affect its respective compositionend event, right? (Do we need to add
this sentence to section 6.2.4?)

(*1) <http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/#keyset-cancelable_keys>

Regards,

Hironori Bono
E-mail: hbono@google.com

2010/6/15 Daniel Danilatos <daniel@danilatos.com>:
> So, after a bunch more discussion, I'd like to propose the following,
> the second point of which involves changing the spec.
>
> 1. All dom mutations resulting from composition must be strictly bound
> between compositionstart and compositionend
> 2. textInput should be fired before compositionend
>
> E.g.
>
> to type "wo" -> 我
>
> user "w"
> event compositionstart
> ("w")
>
> user "o"
> ("wo")
>
> user <space>
> ("我")
>
> user <space> (to commit the composition)
> ("")
> event textInput (cancelable)
> ("我")
> event compositionend
>
> Notes: I have omitted compositionupdate events for simplicity. The
> fact that the user hits space twice is just how the IME example I am
> using works (many pinyin IMEs do this).
>
> If the user hit <ESC> instead of the final <space>, the composition
> would be cancelled - in this case, textInput would simply not fire,
> and compositionend would be fired with no composition text in the
> composition state.
>
> If the event handler prevents default for textInput, compositionend
> would again still fire. Canceling the compositionend is meaningless.
>
> To summarize again, compositionend must always fire for every
> compositionstart, and changes related to the composition must always
> be bound between the two events no matter what. We feel the above is
> the best option because:
> a) Satisfies the use case of having mutations being bound by
> composition events. This is extremely important from our work with
> using these events to date.
> b) Preserves textInput's existing semantics of firing before the final
> composition is committed. This satisfies James Su's concerns stated
> earlier.
> c) Is consistent with existing Firefox behavior (to the extent that's
> possible, given that FF doesn't yet support textInput)
>
> Please let me know if I need to clarify anything.
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:39 AM, James Su <suzhe@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2010年5月28日 上午7:30,Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>写道:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:17 PM, James Su <suzhe@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More points about the second proposal:
>>>> For the second proposal, we do:
>>>> 1. fire compositionupdate event after mutating the dom
>>>> 2. delete composition string before firing compositionend event
>>>> 3. fire textInput after compositionend but before inserting the text
>>>> So that:
>>>> 1. We can know when composition mode starts by hooking compositionstart
>>>> event
>>>> 2. We can get updated composition string in compositionupdate handler
>>>> synchronously
>>>> 3. We can know when composition mode finishes by hooking compositionend
>>>> event
>>>> 4. textInput event can be cancelled in order to revert the DOM tree
>>>> completely.
>>>
>>> What's the use-case for canceling the confirmed composition? I can
>>> see canceling individual keypresses, but I don't see why someone would want
>>> to cancel the composition when the user just confirmed it.
>>
>> textInput event is defined as cancellable. Not sure if there is any real
>> world use-case.
>>
>>>
>>> Firing textInput before each time the DOM is modified does make
>>> compositionUpdate a bit redundant, but it makes textInput more useful by
>>> making it consistently happen before the DOM is ever modified from a
>>> user-initiated text input.
>>
>> The text being composed and the confirmed text are different. I don't think
>> we should mix them. The effect of textInput event for a node is to append a
>> piece of text to existing content, while compositionUpdate is not. And
>> textInput is already in specification for quite a long time, it's not good
>> to change its behavior which may break backward compatibility.
>>
>>>>
>>>> About the deleting and inserting again issue: because compositionend and
>>>> textInsert events are fired in the same event loop iteration, it should not
>>>> cause additional rendering. So the visual and performance impact would
>>>> be negligible.
>>>> The only issue of this proposal is: we need to change composition* events
>>>> to non-cancellable. But anyway, cancelling these events make completely no
>>>> sense. If somebody really wants to cancel the composition process, he/she
>>>> can just cancel the keydown event.
>>>> Regards
>>>> James Su
>>>> 在 2010年5月18日 上午7:49,Daniel Danilatos <daniel@danilatos.com>写道:
>>>>>
>>>>> The spec should make it clear that mutations must be bounded between
>>>>> compositionstart and compositionend events.
>>>>>
>>>>> Background:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31902
>>>>> Hironori has asked me to write up this email arguing for adjusting the
>>>>> spec..
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>
>>>>> >From our implementation experience, it is broken not to bound
>>>>> mutations with compositionstart and compositionend events. not having
>>>>> this severely limits their utility - and requires large amounts of
>>>>> hacky workaround code, even involving asynchronous logic.
>>>>> Firefox already has the correct behaviour, and it is off firefox that
>>>>> we largely based the spec (so the spec should be adjusted)
>>>>> The fix for webkit is already implemented - it was just rejected
>>>>> because it supposedly doesn't match the spec; once the spec is
>>>>> adjusted, both Webkit and FF will be in line with eachother with
>>>>> respect to the composition events.
>>>>> The tricky thing to consider is, when should a textinput event be
>>>>> fired. This is a secondary issue to the strong requirement, that
>>>>> mutations must be bounded by composition events. The options then seem
>>>>> to be:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Compatible with existing spec) Fire textInput after the composition
>>>>> has ended - thus textInput would no longer be a pre-input-event, but
>>>>> really, it never was, as the dom is mutating before the event anyway.
>>>>> Currently, webkit creates the composition text, then removes it again,
>>>>> just so it can then fire the textInput event, and if not cancelled,
>>>>> will then insert the content.
>>>>> (Compatible with existing spec) If textInput really, really must fire
>>>>> before input, even though the dom has already been mutating from the
>>>>> composition, then delete the composition, but do that BEFORE the
>>>>> compositionend event. then fire a regular cancellable textInput. In my
>>>>> opinion this seems wasteful, though.
>>>>> (Incompatible with existing spec) Fire textInput before every change.
>>>>> This is more generally consistent, especially with other proposals to
>>>>> extend textInput (or introduce a similar event) that fires before
>>>>> every change to the DOM at all, including for things like paste, undo,
>>>>> and deletion. For the use case where the application wants to know
>>>>> when some content is ready and in a consistent state (i.e. not during
>>>>> composition), a post-change event is more applicable. Such an event
>>>>> does not have to fire after every single change.
>>>>> We shouldn't fear the final option above - the composition events spec
>>>>> is still in its infancy. Now is the time to make meaningful changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 08:36:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:04 GMT