- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:25:33 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20247 Steve Orvell <sorvell@chromium.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sorvell@chromium.org --- Comment #14 from Steve Orvell <sorvell@chromium.org> --- A polymer user had a question about this today which prompted some discussion (www.polymer-project.org). I think at the least the spec needs to be updated to explain the logic behind stopping events. Most of the events that are stopped are non-bubbling events (except 'change'). Since these don't bubble, why must they be stopped? Is this to prevent capturing? Stopping events poses some problems: 1. Are the events stopped entirely by name? For example, if a synthetic event is dispatched called 'load' will it be stopped? If so, that seems bad. 2. In the context of custom elements, the developer may want control over whether or not the event stops at the shadowDOM boundary. In light of this complexity, it seems like a more complex api would be needed to be able to hide shadow events effectively. Instead of introducing this complexity, perhaps we can remove the concept of stopped events entirely and instead rely on bubbling behavior. Non-bubbling events will naturally not propagate outside shadowRoot. Events that are captured would just be retargeted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 00:25:36 UTC