mjs at apple.com
Fri Apr 24 13:29:16 PDT 2009
On Apr 24, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> I like the basic idea, but I think drawing too much inspiration from
> DOM events is a bad idea. What does it mean to "capture" a pure JS
There's really two aspects to the DOM event model. One is the basic
addEventListner / dispatchEvent mechanism, which allows objects to
have event listeners attached. The other is the bubble/capture event
flow in the DOM tree. It can make sense for an object to be an
EventTarget without participating in bubble/capture, because it is not
part of the DOM document tree. An example of this is XMLHttpRequest.
> Further, the DOM event model has problems. It would be nice if
> events were first-class, not strings. It would be more idiomatic JS, I
> would argue, to do someObject.onClick.add(<handler>).
It's a bit late in the game to change the DOM itself to work that way.
And having some other event mechanism that works like this, while DOM
events continue to work as they do, would be confusing I think. One
advantage to string event names is that users of the DOM can invent
custom event names at will. In addition, it is possible to register
for events that are not supported without having to do feature
testing. There are certainly downsides to the design but it is not
More information about the whatwg