Re: Spec should say whether events bubble and are cancelable

You're right. I checked the spec and there's no reason either canceling or
bubbling should apply to these events. I'd say go ahead and add that text.

- Dominic

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
> wrote:
> > I thought that the objects receiving events are EventTargets, not Nodes,
> so
> > what would it even mean for them to bubble?
>
> Right, it doesn't make sense for us, but maybe the spec should say it
> anyway?
>
> > I'd prefer that they should be cancelable. It should be possible for a
> web
> > developer to attach multiple event listeners to the same target and have
> one
> > of them fully consume the event so that it doesn't get handled twice.
>
> Isn't the cancelable property used to decide if the event's default
> action can be prevented? For example, IndexedDB's error events are
> cancelable, because it is possible to prevent their default action of
> aborting the current transaction. Another example is the submit event
> that is fired when submitting forms; those are cancelable because it
> is possible to prevent the submittal of the form [1].
>
> In our case, the events don't have a default action, so what would it
> mean to cancel them?
>
> Thanks,
> Hans
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20110531/#event-flow-default-cancel
>