- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:37:42 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23887 --- Comment #193 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> --- Thank you for analyzing. (In reply to Koji Ishii from comment #192) > Finished analyzing the test results, here are two differences from > current/candidates algorithms. > > 1. As Hayato explained in the comment #191, older shadow roots are moved > from "before the IP they're distributed to" to "after younger shadow roots". > > D,C,M,L,R,Q,P,O,N,K,J,I,H,G,U,T,S,F,E,X,W,V,B,A > D,C,M,L,R,Q,P,O,N,K,J,I,H,G,U,T,S,F,X,W,V,E,B,A > > 2. Older shadow roots that were not in the path are now included. Two > examples below, when event target is "div <-- target", SR-OLDEST and > SR-OLDER are now included. > > HOST > div <-- target > SR-OLDEST > div > SR-MIDDLE > content > SR-YOUNGEST > shadow > > HOST > SR-OLDER > SR-YOUNGER > shadow > div <-- target Both are expected to me. Unless there is a use case where this causes a trouble, I'm okay to have this behavior. This behavior is fine because I think we shouldn't skip an intermediate node tree in a tree of trees in dispatching an event. A node trees which are involved in dispatching an event should be connected, I think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 00:37:44 UTC