- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:52:01 -0400
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 4/24/12 5:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:02:22 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >>> (DOM3's language >>> about "default actions" confuses this; I suggest reading DOM4's event >>> section to get a good picture of how this actually works.) >> >> Or rather how the DOM4 editor is choosing to conceptualize it, which >> may not have much bearing on how it actually works in actual browsers. > > Last time I discussed this with Jonas Sicking he agreed that Gecko could > change some things here and he also agreed with the model put forward. > If the model is wrong we should fix it of course. It's a conceptual model. I'm just saying that actual implementations behave differently on the inside; I don't think the difference is black-box distinguishable from a typical web page. > I'm not sure how extensions are relevant here. Glenn asked why events need internal state that indicates whether they're trusted. Extensions are one of the reasons. > If you allow them to do > complex things then of course they will be complex to implement, but > there is not much we can do about that. Sure there is, where "we" == "browser vendors". We can expose APIs to extensions to make them easier to implement. APIs that expose things like the trusted state of events. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 23:52:34 UTC