W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [DOM Level 3 Events] optionality of the capture argument in addEventListener/removeEventListener

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:04:48 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimcG0LjgT3Nk8iezh2W4xRc__63yxZoRP448aY=@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Sergey Ilinsky <sergey@ilinsky.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On 9/25/10, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:00:37 +0200, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
> wrote:
>> There are many cases where leaving out that required 3rd argument
>> just fails miserably.
>>
>> Wish it weren't so. Afaik, it'll definitely break things.
>
> In the short term, sure. In the long term all browsers will support it. We
> should definitely make this change.
>

In the short term, new tutorials may be written saying that it is
optional and authors will follow those guides, causing
interoperability problems for older browsers.

That's the bad. The good is the long term scenario of having a
slightly cleaner API and resultant code (that doesn't need the extra
param).

I'd like to see a little warning in the spec, something along the lines of:

useCapture -
 [description]
 If omitted, the behavior is the same as if `false` had been supplied.

Note that `useCapture` was required in previous versions of the
specification and omitting it will result in an error in older
implementations. Authors should therefore continue to supply a value
for `useCapture` until implementations support its omission.

[...]
Old thread:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2006AprJun/0022.html>
-- 
Garrett
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 20:05:25 GMT

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