This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 23163 - [Shadow]: Clarify handling of mutation events
Summary: [Shadow]: Clarify handling of mutation events
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 23577
Alias: None
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HISTORICAL - Component Model (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dimitri Glazkov
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-09-05 03:50 UTC by Yuta Kitamura
Modified: 2013-10-22 06:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Yuta Kitamura 2013-09-05 03:50:32 UTC
Section 7 reads:
"""
The mutation event types must never be dispatched in a shadow tree.
"""

... but this statement looks unclear on what it really means in terms of
its formal requirements.

Specifically:
- What should UAs do if a mutation event occur within a shadow tree?
  - UAs must not "dispatch" the event, in a sense defined in
    <http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dispatching-events>?
  - Or, UAs must not "invoke" the event?
  - Either way, we'll need to monkey-patch the DOM events spec to define
    a desired behavior precisely.

- First of all, why do we need to special-case the mutation events?
  Is there known cases where mutation events interact badly with shadow trees?
Comment 1 Olli Pettay 2013-09-05 11:05:44 UTC
We're trying to get rid of MutationEvents so we should try to not expose them
in new contexts.
(And none of the current browser engines implement all the MutationEvents anyway).
Comment 2 Ojan Vafai 2013-09-05 17:34:44 UTC
+1. Lets not fire MutationEvents at all from shadow trees. FWIW, we're slowly removing existing MutationEvent support from Blink as usage gets low enough.
Comment 3 Yuta Kitamura 2013-10-22 06:54:33 UTC
Yeah, I'm aware that we are trying to kill MutationEvents and I'm okay with
not handling the mutation events.

With that said, I think the remaining issue here boils down to defining
the exact behavior of event dispatching in general. For now, I'm resolving
this bug as a duplicate of bug 23577, which more or less covers the same topic.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 23577 ***