- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 15:49:44 +0200
- To: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, James Ross <w3c-20040125@james-ross.co.uk>
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:05 AM, James Ross <w3c-20040125@james-ross.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> >>> > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:42:07 +0200 >>> > From: philipj@opera.com >>> > >>> > I think this looks like a very promising approach. Would there be any >>> > way to feature detect support for EventListenerOptions as the third >>> > argument? It seems like a problem that addEventListener(type, >>> > callback, { mayCancel: false }) would be treated as >>> > addEventListener(type, callback, true) in existing browsers. >>> >>> >>> http://rbyers.github.io/EventListenerOptions/EventListenerOptions.html#extensions-to-the-event-interface >>> and >>> http://rbyers.github.io/EventListenerOptions/EventListenerOptions.html#examples >>> example 2 are intended to cover this. >> >> >> Right, thanks. What I've suggested is kind of weird though. Olli raises >> a good point that we should discuss general dictionary-member feature >> detection patterns in the abstract before committing to something like this. >> I'd love other opinions / ideas on the bug. > > > I should perhaps add that I'd hope developers don't really need to use the > pattern in example #2 explicitly. Instead I expect they'd mostly rely on a > simple polyfill (which I'll take an initial crack at writing once the API > shape settles down a bit). I see, the answer is getSupportedListenerOptions(). Seems slightly peculiar, but would work. Should be on EventTarget if anything, though.
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 13:50:18 UTC