- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:19:26 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: >>> >>> Why is the clear sign of having a listener for the event not sufficient? >>> What is the basic difference. >> >> It can be *significantly* more complicated to tell if the element has >> event listeners than to tell if it has an attribute, unfortunately. > > Could you address the other points About re-serialisation of the DOM > leading to something radically different from what was intended (the > attribute should only be there if there was also an event listener > after a re-serialisation and parse it wouldn't be there.) This is a general problem with event handlers -- any document using script will have different behaviour if you remove all the event handlers. For example, if you take the following HTML4 fragment: <form> <button> Test </button> </form> ...the behaviour will be radically different if, when the fragment was serialise, the <form> element had an event listener that cancelled any "submit" events. > I realise you have a large job Ian going through all these comments, but > you often miss out some element of each post, I really do think an issue > tracker is important. I fail to see how an issue tracker would improve matters in this respect. If I really do omit to respond to a comment, I assure you it was either a mistake, or because the comment did not appear to be relevant (for example, the point above about reserialisation isn't relevant since, as described above, it is an issue with event listeners as a whole, not with the onreceived="" attribute). If you think I skipped a comment by mistake, I urge you to reraise the issue (as you did here, and as one would have to do with an issue tracker). Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 09:19:26 UTC