25423 2014-04-23 04:35:33 +0000 [Shadow]: event.path should return every nodes in the event path, instead of erasing nodes on descendant trees. 2014-05-27 11:39:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 14978 1 hayato hayato annevk d dglazkov erik.arvidsson mike public-webapps rafaelw public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 104245 0 hayato 2014-04-23 04:35:33 +0000 It might be useful that we just expose every nodes in the event path in event.path API, instead of filtering out nodes on descendant trees. 104251 1 annevk 2014-04-23 09:20:10 +0000 Note that there is another bug on .path open somewhere. It should be able to hold more than nodes. 104254 2 hayato 2014-04-23 09:52:39 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #1) > Note that there is another bug on .path open somewhere. It should be able to > hold more than nodes. Yep. IIRC, event.path should return an array of *EventTarget*, rather than NodeList. 104256 3 annevk 2014-04-23 10:27:44 +0000 Correct. Domenic, event.path is another property where we want a "JavaScript Array" solution quickly. 104264 4 d 2014-04-23 13:04:16 +0000 I think at the TAG we were fairly strongly on the side of just using normal mutable JavaScript arrays. This shouldn't be hard. 104266 5 erik.arvidsson 2014-04-23 13:54:45 +0000 To be clear I thought we also wanted to remove the retargetting that is done on the event path. Composed tree a | b | [SR] | c | <content> | d var calls = 0; a.addEventListener('click', (e) => { assert.deepEqual([a, b, SR, c, content, d], e.path); calls++; }); d.click(); assert.equal(calls, 1); 104270 6 annevk 2014-04-23 14:32:57 +0000 Erik, if event.path works like that, it does not describe what happens for elements existing today as they hide the shadow tree. Do we really want to leak shadow trees all over the place? 104271 7 erik.arvidsson 2014-04-23 14:34:39 +0000 The idea would be to hide those from the path once the spec adds a way to make hidden shadow trees. In Blink we would of course need to hide our internals for <video> etc even if the spec does not cover this yet. 104272 8 annevk 2014-04-23 14:40:51 +0000 Hmm. http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#events-that-are-always-stopped is still around too. Those magic lists are bad. How is this shipping without the bugs filed being addressed? 104285 9 dglazkov 2014-04-23 16:17:01 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #8) > Hmm. > http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#events-that-are-always- > stopped is still around too. Those magic lists are bad. How is this shipping > without the bugs filed being addressed? Not sure what you mean there. There's both a bug for it (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20247) and an explicit item in the plan thing I sent out early this year (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JanMar/0338.html) 104318 10 hayato 2014-04-24 07:48:41 +0000 (In reply to Erik Arvidsson from comment #5) > To be clear I thought we also wanted to remove the retargetting that is done > on the event path. This could be filed as another issue. Could you file another bug? I'd like to see a use case for that there. 104898 11 hayato 2014-05-01 07:42:33 +0000 I'd like to move this issue forward. Can we agree on this? AFAIR, we have a reason for this change. I appreciate someone would give us a use case for this change in this discussion. 104912 12 rafaelw 2014-05-01 17:08:52 +0000 a common pattern of event delegation is to put the delegate (listener) on the document root, but to mark specific nodes in the document which information about what to do with the specific event. When the delegate handles the event, it must inspect the node to retrieve the information (e.g. what method to invoke on the delegate). If the event.path is sanitized on it's way up as the event bubbles, in the information the document-wide delegate may need is no longer reachable because it belongs to the a node which has been removed. 104951 13 annevk 2014-05-02 08:26:33 +0000 However, if shadow tree nodes are just in there, it really isn't much of a "shadow" tree anymore, much more like a real tree. But I guess we lost that when we lost stronger encapsulation... 104975 14 dglazkov 2014-05-02 14:43:35 +0000 (In reply to Anne from comment #13) > However, if shadow tree nodes are just in there, it really isn't much of a > "shadow" tree anymore, much more like a real tree. But I guess we lost that > when we lost stronger encapsulation... Yup. Let's not forget to erase nodes from event path for "closed" shadow trees. 105292 15 hayato 2014-05-07 10:32:48 +0000 Thank you for the comments. Let me update the spec so that event.path will return every nodes, except for nodes in the *closed descendant trees*. 106839 16 hayato 2014-05-27 11:39:38 +0000 Done at https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/2a44fb1a32a3a6aaa7bd82d37f6bd17eb2d67535