16350 2012-03-13 23:03:17 +0000 Fix occurances of RFC2119 terms in notes 2012-03-13 23:09:44 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - DOM3 Events unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0226.html LC, needsReview P2 normal --- 1 travil travil jrossi mike Ms2ger www-dom zcorpan public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 65480 0 travil 2012-03-13 23:03:17 +0000 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 65482 1 travil 2012-03-13 23:09:44 +0000 Adding a few folks who participated on the thread. ------ I did a run through the entire spec to try and make all the notes RFC2119-clean. The latest revision of the spec has these changes. Please review to see if this satisfies this bug. (Note, there may be other occurances of RFC2119 terms used _outside_ of notes, where the intent of the spec author may have been to specify a note. If you come across these, please report them as new bugs!