Re: ISSUE-822

Le 17 jan 2013 à 16:10, Jim Barnett a écrit :

> >>>> I think that we should change the example to ‘(for example, if  it attempts to assign to a read-only property)’.  Just to remind developers that they need to catch this case.   The cases where Jscript raises an error should be obvious, but this one might be easy to overlook. 

Agreed. I had missed it myself until this issue with Event properties popped up.


> >>>> We can change the prose to “The Processor MUST populate any other settable attributes of the event…”  For example, if you’re using SCXML to emulate a user, it will be useful to allow it to set the x and y attributes of click events, etc.  Any param or namelist entries that don’t correspond to settable attributes will be placed in ‘detail’.  

Deal (but call them "initializable attributes, i.e. properties named in the arguments list of the Event's DOM3 init method or allowed in the Event's DOM4 constructor's second argument").
That means, however, that we end up with redundant "bubbles" and "cancelable" attributes for <send type="DOM"/>.

http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/dom4events/#constructors


> >>>> So I think that we can just remove all reference to EventTarget from the spec.  The current draft does require that the platform implement a function like the one you describe, but doesn’t specify its name or arguments.  The reason for this is that the W3C requires two implementations of each feature.  The only person besides you who is likely to have an implementation is Jakob, and as I recall he does things slightly differently.  I’d hate to lose the whole DOM Event I/O processor just because he called his function something different.

I understand. That will have to be standardized later.


			David