- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:06:02 +0200
- To: "ms2ger@gmail.com" <ms2ger@gmail.com>, "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:19:26 +0200, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Note: For programming languages which do not allow optional method > >>> parameters, such as Java, the implementation may provide two > >>> EventTarget.addEventListener methods, one with 2 parameters, and one > >>> with 3 parameters. > >> > >> Is this a note or is it normative? You can't have both. > > This is a note that suggests a workaround for implementations in > languages that don't support optional arguments. It's not normative. An > implementation may do this, or it may not-up to the implementer (since > optional useCapture isn't required). 'may' is an RFC2119 term. Don't use it in notes. > >>> If a listener was registered twice, once for the capture and target > >>> phases and once for the target and bubbling phases, each must be > >>> removed separately. > >> > >> It's not clear if this is a UA requirement. > > > > This is intended for authors: > > > > target.addEventListener("foo",bar,false); > > target.addEventListener("foo",bar,true); > > target.removeEventListener("foo",bar,false); > > > > This only removes the first of the two listeners. It doesn't look like a note to me. It looks like a conformance requirement (since it contains the word 'must'). If it's targeting authors, it means they're being non-conforming if they don't remove their event listeners any time they register a listener twice (one capture and one bubbling). If you intend it to be a note, clearly mark it as a note and don't use RFC2119 terms. > > >>> The content authors should also remove their EventListener from its > >>> EventTarget after they have completed using the listener. > >> > >> I wonder why this is a "should". > > > > It's a coding "best practices" suggestion towards authors. 'should' is not a suggestion, it's a conformance requirement. ... It seems to me you need to be more careful in your usage of RFC2119 keywords. Also see http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1 -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 06:05:38 UTC