[Bug 23887] [Shadow] Put only the final destination insertion point to the event path

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887

--- Comment #76 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> ---
So then XBL1 also has exact same the complex weaving of nodes from different
trees. I.e. the event path for "normal" (non-insertion-point, non-shadow-root)
nodes is the same for XBL1 and shadow DOM.

So it sounds like we're back to that the remaining question to solve is if we
should have insertion points in the event path or not? Or is there other things
too?

I guess we could also argue over if the shadow-root should be in the event path
or not, but I don't see any disadvantages of having it in the event path, and
don't think I've seen anyone in here argue that it shouldn't be in the event
path. Or did I miss that?


I agree that if you look at the event path across different events and across
different disconnected trees, then keeping insertion points in the event path
creates a more complex understanding.

However reasoning about the order of events within a single tree, even when
looking across multiple different events, is still quite simple. I.e. it's no
different from normal DOM event propagation (again, unless I'm missing
something).

And if you look at the order of events across multiple trees, then you'll
always see a somewhat complex view, even in XBL1. But it definitely gets more
complex when you have insertion points in there too.


So the question is, does the ability to listen to events from nodes inserted
into an insertion point warrant that extra complexity?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 19:38:30 UTC