- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:18:02 +0100
- To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- Cc: Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Eric Seidel <eric@webkit.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> Well, eventually we might want to merge the whole DOM part of Shadow >> DOM and DOM I think, but for now my proposition was that dispatch >> calculates its tree in terms of asking for the event parent of a >> certain even type from an object. Shadow DOM could use that concept to >> define what the parent is. E.g. for a shadow root it would be the >> associated element, or not if the event type is something you do not >> want to leak, etc. > > I think that's cool. cc' me on bug/patch, I want to review it. > >> That way when specifications use the dispatch algorithm it >> automatically makes sense in the Shadow DOM rather than that you have >> to monkey-patch whatever Shadow DOM says on top of DOM, which is >> rather bad way of writing specifications. > > Yay! Moar hooks! What would help me is to better understand the requirements of the shadow DOM with respect to event dispatch. To calculate the dispatch tree, you're using the event type, right? Then at certain points you're also making modifications to the Event object being dispatched, correct? Is there anything else? I'd like to expose those as hooks from the dispatch algorithm, but I'd like to make sure I'm not missing anything. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 20:18:29 UTC