- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: 2013年6月17日 18:52:23 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, John Barton <johnjbarton@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CABirCh9mhZBo58qRO5arTNmFCykcULE_PnkpJPbGzz+tjNUyWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:38 PM, John Barton <johnjbarton@google.com>wrote: > Check-boxes are changed asynchronously (by XHR processing) all of the time. > That's not the asynchronicity we're talking about. The event happens synchronously with changing the checkbox value (and possibly changing it back); they all happen in the same task. On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > And even the usual pattern is fairly defective when you > have more than one listener and only want to react to an event if it is > not canceled by any of the listeners, or want to undo any side-effects > > if it was canceled as the case may be; only the dispatching code can do > that properly. > (The event model doesn't have a direct way to add an event listener that only runs if no other listener called preventDefault, but this seems a bit tangental.) -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 23:52:50 UTC