On 4/24/12 5:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:02:22 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <
bzbarsky@...> wrote:
>>> (DOM3's language
>>> about "default actions" confuses this; I suggest reading DOM4's event
>>> section to get a good picture of how this actually works.)
>>
>> Or rather how the DOM4 editor is choosing to conceptualize it, which
>> may not have much bearing on how it actually works in actual browsers.
>
> Last time I discussed this with Jonas Sicking he agreed that Gecko could
> change some things here and he also agreed with the model put forward.
> If the model is wrong we should fix it of course.
It's a conceptual model. I'm just saying that actual implementations
behave differently on the inside; I don't think the difference is
black-box distinguishable from a typical web page.
> I'm not sure how extensions are relevant here.
Glenn asked why events need internal state that indicates whether
they're trusted. Extensions are one of the reasons.
> If you allow them to do
> complex things then of course they will be complex to implement, but
> there is not much we can do about that.
Sure there is, where "we" == "browser vendors". We can expose APIs to
extensions to make them easier to implement. APIs that expose things
like the trusted state of events.
-Boris
