[whatwg] This step must be skipped if the form has no onreceived attribute
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Jun 23 09:19:26 PDT 2004
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>>> Why is the clear sign of having a listener for the event not sufficient?
>>> What is the basic difference.
>> It can be *significantly* more complicated to tell if the element has
>> event listeners than to tell if it has an attribute, unfortunately.
> Could you address the other points About re-serialisation of the DOM
> leading to something radically different from what was intended (the
> attribute should only be there if there was also an event listener
> after a re-serialisation and parse it wouldn't be there.)
This is a general problem with event handlers -- any document using script
will have different behaviour if you remove all the event handlers.
For example, if you take the following HTML4 fragment:
<form> <button> Test </button> </form>
...the behaviour will be radically different if, when the fragment was
serialise, the <form> element had an event listener that cancelled any
> I realise you have a large job Ian going through all these comments, but
> you often miss out some element of each post, I really do think an issue
> tracker is important.
I fail to see how an issue tracker would improve matters in this respect.
If I really do omit to respond to a comment, I assure you it was either a
mistake, or because the comment did not appear to be relevant (for
example, the point above about reserialisation isn't relevant since, as
described above, it is an issue with event listeners as a whole, not with
the onreceived="" attribute).
If you think I skipped a comment by mistake, I urge you to reraise the
issue (as you did here, and as one would have to do with an issue
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg