- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:31:24 -0700
- To: Olli@pettay.fi
- Cc: Sergey Ilinsky <sergey@ilinsky.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote: > On 09/24/2010 11:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Sergey Ilinsky<sergey@ilinsky.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> There are modern browsers that made 3rd argument in the >>> addEventListener/removeEventListener be optional. Is this a legal step? >>> If I understand correctly, specification requires 3rd argument to be >>> passed, >>> thus the new behaviour not backed by the change >>> in specification only destabilizes web as a platform. >>> Personally, I like the behaviour, but cannot use it as long as not every >>> browser does that. >> >> Currently it does not appear to be legal based on my reading of the >> latest editor drafts. However I would love to change that. It wouldn't >> be a big change in the spec, just stick [optional] in front of the >> useCapture argument, and it should be no problem as far as backwards >> compatibility goes. And at least in gecko it would be trivial to >> implement. >> >> The only problem I can think of is that it means that people might >> write pages that only works in newer browsers, however that is true >> for any new feature added. >> >> / Jonas > > I don't support this kind of change. > It happens way too often that people don't think about the phase, and that > leads to bugs. I don't think requiring the last argument is helping a whole lot with that right now. I've heard multiple times developers say: "I don't know why I have to specify the last 'false' value, but I have to do that everywhere when I call addEventListener". / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 03:32:18 UTC