- From: Lea Verou <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:46:22 -0800
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 15:47:08 UTC
This is what I could find: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2012AprJun/0131.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jun/0157.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2014JulSep/0029.html At first glance, it appears the pushback is entirely comprised of the theoretical purity arguments that @domenic mentioned would come up. No implementation difficulties or anything of the like. Tab mentioned an alternative in the last thread: Allowing an option for namespacing and removing events via namespaces, with both strings and symbols allowed. This is a good idea but does not solve all use cases. For example, a major use case is cloning an element with its events. In that case you legitimately want access to listeners you did not bind. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/412#issuecomment-280685211
Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 15:47:08 UTC