On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Karl Groves <kgroves@paciellogroup.com> > wrote: > > I'm not sure the reply "this been discussed and rejected several times > > before ... I would advise against reopening the discussion." is terribly > > helpful. To Shane's original question: which WG would be best to address > > this with or to search down the history of the relevant discussions? Is > > there a way to get access to those previous discussions or at least a > > summary as to why? > > This list would be the best place for such research. > > > > And that search turns up almost a quarter-of-a-million results. The top > > results are quite relevant to this discussion and also demonstrate that > many > > people are looking for such a thing. The fact is, the browsers > themselves > > already have this, but it isn't exposed in a way that devs can get to. > > The reasoning is that listeners are observers and adding one should > not have side effects. Exposing listeners leads to abuse. > Both the action of adding a listener (observer) and invoking a listener can and does have side effects. So I don't see why you say it should not, since it clearly does. Furthermore, exposing the existence of listeners doesn't itself produce a side effect, though if such exposure also leads to invocation of the listener's call back, then it certainly might. I wonder what the 'abuse' might be. Can you be more explicit? I can imagine that if an add-on enumerates all listeners and by doing so discovers all non-add-on added listeners, it could then remove or augment (e.g., replace the listener with its own that does something else and then invokes the original listener). > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > >
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2014 14:47:58 UTC