PORTING last call comments from email to bugs for tracking purposes
[see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0226.html]
------------------------------------------------------------------

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