- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 07:36:48 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887 --- Comment #37 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> --- (In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #36) > yeah, and I don't understand why the complicated (1) is chosen. > > distributionChanged event might be useful, but probably not needed. > One can always just add listeners to the host. > And distributionChanged could be added later if needed. I'd like to hear a opinion from Steve. I agree that (1) is complicated than (2), but (1) doesn't break the original claim in comment #1, does that? > To not break consistency with normal DOM where if a node is in event path, I think we have to find a balance. (1) is complicated, but (1) gives developers more power. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 07:36:50 UTC