- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:38:24 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
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