- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:23:12 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > but that behaviour is "nothing" The behaviour with script is whatever the script does, and without script is a form submission. Hardly "nothing". > which is bad, but it's better than the WF2 suggestion which would give > you an attribute of onrecieved="chicken" which is likely to error Eh? Where did the poultry come from. You only need to set the attribute, not give it a value. Just set: onreceived="" ...and your event listener will be used if present, and the form submission will continue as per normal (although with a slower, non-incremental, page load). I don't really understand what you are complaining about. >> I fail to see how an issue tracker would improve matters in this >> respect. > > Oh right, I do, since everything would have a "this is issue # X and we > can easily see that it was addressed, and how it was addressed." You can do that now. Look at the archives in Thread view. >> 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). > > No, since we're forced in your WF2 to put an attribute in, which doesn't > make sense unless the script exists but does exist then, normally with > Event listeners if the script doesn't exist neither do any of the > dependant attributes, with this method we have the dependant attributes, > but no script to handle it. I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you give an example? >> 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). > > But I'll generally know when you don't respond to mine, I don't know > when you don't respond to other peoples issues, and they may be highly > relevant, but I can't know, if we have an issue tracker we can see > that the open issues exist. Every WF2-related e-mail above: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-June/date.html#210 ...is, as far as I am concerned, a closed issue. (There are Web Apps e-mails above there that are still open, but those are mainly listing requirements, not issues.) So if someone sent a WF2 e-mail and it is above that line, and I haven't replied to it, and it is still relevant, then I missed it. I couldn't find any such e-mail just now, but let me know if you find one. The e-mails after that line are those that I am still replying to. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 10:23:12 UTC