- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:08:23 +0100
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:56:21 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > I was going to stop the comments for now, but: > > > > | Step seven: Dispatch the received event. > > | This step must be skipped if the form has no onreceived attribute. > > > > Was so awful I had to mention it... We can't use DOM events to add event > > listeners, why not, it's utterly ridiculous... > > You can add event listeners -- you just have to make sure the attribute is > present as well. This is required because otherwise in order to implement > this, every time you submitted a form you would have to wait til you had > completely parsed the new document before tearing down the old one, which > is of course unacceptable. This way, the author has to give a clear sign > (adding an attribute) that this is acceptable for him. Why is the clear sign of having a listener for the event not sufficient? What is the basic difference. it seems rather ridiculous to go: chicken.setAttributeNS(null,'onrecieved','wibble') chicken.addEventListenerNS(somethingNS,'received',etc especially as then upon re-serialisation of the document the onrecieved attribute is likely in the wrong state. I'd encourage you to reconsider this. Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 10:08:23 UTC