- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 27 Aug 2003 16:04:09 -0400
- To: Brad Pettit <bradp@microsoft.com>
- Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 21:03, Brad Pettit wrote:
> By stating that a cancelled keyDown CANNOT contribute to the generation
> of a text event, you are suggesting that it DOES contribute to a text
> event because changing the key down controls whether the text event will
> fire.
>
> Additionally, one situation where this could be a problem is a modifier
> key. If one cancels the keydown of a modifer key, but then does not
> cancel the keyDown for an alpha-numeric key following it, the cancelled
> modifier key would still probably contribute to the character generated
> by the system, and there may be no reasonable way to change that.
>
> That's why I was suggesting key events should be as detached from
> textEvents as possible. Cancelling a key event should have no relation
> to the generation of the text event, just as cancelling a keyDown event
> may have no relation to the generation of a keyUp event. The generation
> of text should not be assumed as the default action of the keyDown.
After discussions, there was still reluctance to ignore the fact that
keys do generate text. However, the control of the text generation
following the cancellation of a key could be a problem, as you
demonstrated with your modifier example. The consensus was to remove the
first sentence ("If cancelled, a keydown cannot contribute to the
generation of text events. ") and keep the second one:
[[
Whether a keydown/keyup
contributes or not to the generation of a text event is implementation
dependent.
]]
This statement should be enough to discourage applications to cancel
keys in order to affect the text generation imho.
Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2003 21:41:42 UTC