- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:19:40 -0800
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Jim Ley wrote: > "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com> >> So I don't think this is a valid concern. > > It's a a very big concern for content authors, we can't know what > environment we're running in, that means we will always be doing the 2 > behaviour, this makes the 3 behaviour irrelevant. If you don't know which environment you are running in then you can simply avoid relying on the order. That is no different from today so I don't see this as a problem. >> I disagree. Leaving the ordering unspecified will likely result in >> content accidentally depending on the ordering of whatever UA it is >> tested in. > > I think you need to point to large amounts of code that does this, ie > it's a genuine problem, I do not believe it is. I agree with Maciej here, leaving things undefined and saying that people shouldn't depend on it should always be avoided because way too few authors will obey that. Most people test in a browser and then expect it to work in all browsers. Additionally, stopImmediatePropagation is a very dangerous function if order is not defined. So if we want stopImmediatePropagation we must define an order. The one usecase for stopImmediatePropagation that was brought up so far was XBL. In XBL handlers are fired in the order that bindings are derived and one binding calling stopImmediatePropagation will stop all further derived bindings. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 00:19:36 UTC