Re: ISSUE-38: DOM 3 Events abort/error bubble, ProgressEvent abort/error do not [Progress Events]

Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> ISSUE-38: DOM 3 Events abort/error bubble, ProgressEvent abort/error
> do not [Progress Events]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Philip Jägenstedt On product: Progress Events
> 
> The DOM 3 abort/error events
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/events.html) bubble, while
> the progress events by the same name do not bubble.
> 
> First, is formally/practically possible to have two separate events
> with the same name but different bubbles/cancelable flags? 
Why not? Anyone can anyway use initXXXEvent to create whatever events
with any possible combination of bubbles and cancelable flags.


> I am not
> aware of any other such cases so it is reasonable to think that there
> will be implementation problems because the event name can no longer
> be uniquely mapped to bubbles/cancelable without taking some other
> information into account.
Because initXXXEvent allows all the combinations, implementations should
be able to support event names with any event type and flags.

> 
> It's also not obvious what type of event addEventListener("error",
> <listener>, true) captures if it is attached to an ancenstor of one
> node which is a target for ProgressEvent-error and another which is a
> target for Event-error.
True. The listener must check the type of the event.

> 
> Even though it is possible to work around these problems they would
> be better be solved at the spec level.
> 
> Possible ways forward:
> 
> 1. Change progress event abort/error to bubble. The problem is that
> this doesn't really make any sense in the context where progress
> events are supposed to be used though.
> 
> 2. Change DOM 3 Events abort/error to not bubble. Is this even
> remotely possible? In what cases do bubbling abort/error matter?
> 3. Change the name of progress event's abort/error to something
> else.
> 
Unfortunately XHR has had 'error' for ages. Of course we could add
yet another event, but that is a bit ugly.


Or
4. Leave things as they currently are specified.


-Olli

Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 05:53:19 UTC