20549 2013-01-02 18:14:40 +0000 Need to define "corresponding event handler" 2013-03-06 22:38:28 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#events P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian bzbarsky ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 80843 0 contributor 2013-01-02 18:14:40 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/webappapis.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#events Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#events Comment: Need to define "corresponding event handler" Posted from: 173.48.81.109 by bzbarsky@mit.edu User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:20.0) Gecko/20121217 Firefox/20.0 80844 1 bzbarsky 2013-01-02 18:15:42 +0000 The spec uses the term "corresponding event handler" a lot, but doesn't actually define it anywhere. This is especially relevant for things like what setAttribute and removeAttribute should do. Specifically, document.body.removeAttribute("onload") should remove the load event handler on the _Window_, as far as I can tell, and this is entirely non-obvious as things stand. 80920 2 ian 2013-01-05 04:03:51 +0000 In theory, this is defined here: http://whatwg.org/html/#handler-window-onload ...using the definitions here: http://whatwg.org/html/#event-handler-attributes Is that insufficient? 80922 3 bzbarsky 2013-01-05 04:17:35 +0000 That wasn't exactly clear to me when I read this. It's worth just explicitly defining the term "corresponding event handler" in terms of these tables, I think. 80924 4 ian 2013-01-05 04:40:21 +0000 As in this?: An event handler has a name. Its <spantitle="event handler IDL attributes">event handler IDL attribute, if any, has the same name. Similarly, its event handler content attribute, if any, has the same name. 80925 5 bzbarsky 2013-01-05 05:18:23 +0000 What I'm after is something that defines the actual word combination "corresponding event handler" when one starts with an attribute. That means defining that it has the same name, yes, but also defining which object it lives on. Saying that the tables in question determine this last is fine, but it just needs to be said. 80928 6 ian 2013-01-05 06:45:28 +0000 "Corresponding" here is just used in its English meaning... I don't understand why this needs a definition beyond that. What other interpretation could there be? The spec explicitly says that the event handlers have "corresponding content attributes and IDL attributes exposed on the body and frameset elements" already. 80929 7 bzbarsky 2013-01-05 06:50:27 +0000 You're the one who keeps telling people to not read between the lines... The spec is assuming a bijective relationship between attributes and event handlers, but not making it clear anywhere. It defines a mapping from event handlers to attributes, but not the other direction. So for an event handler there is a corresponding attribute, but it's not actually stated that for the attribute there is a corresponding event handler. The English meaning of corresponding just implies a function, not anything about the function being invertible... 80944 8 ian 2013-01-05 19:57:18 +0000 I really don't understand what interpretation of the spec is possible other than the one that is intended. I'm not saying you need to read between the lines, I'm saying the text is unambiguous as written as far as I can tell... I've tried to clarify it a bit (see patch below). If that's not enough, please try to explain what other interpretation is possible, and what text you would suggest that would make it unambiguous. 80945 9 contributor 2013-01-05 19:58:21 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r7637. Check-in comment: Try to clarify event handler stuff http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7636&to=7637 80951 10 bzbarsky 2013-01-06 00:51:07 +0000 > I really don't understand what interpretation of the spec is possible The code I was looking at tried removing an event handler on the <body> itself when removeAttribute("onload") was called. Will take a look at the diff later. Thanks! 80952 11 bzbarsky 2013-01-06 01:32:29 +0000 The new setup is better, yeah. Thank you! 84048 12 ian 2013-03-06 22:38:28 +0000 Marking fixed based on comment 11; please reopen if I missed something.