On 11/23/11 10:03 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Can't browsers add instrumentation for this? You have users who have
opted in to sending anonymized data. So for each user, on a small
percentage of pages, intercept all bare-name property accesses in on*.
With enough work, this is possible. It'd inv
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Again, some decent data on what pages actually do in on* handlers would be
> really good. I have no idea how to get it. :(
Can't browsers add instrumentation for this? You have users who have
opted in to sending anonymized data. So for e
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky
> wrote:
> >> On 11/22/11 12:57 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> >>> I was hoping that we could have a fixed small list of properties
> >>> that
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> On 11/22/11 12:57 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>>
>>> The fewer properties that are exposed this way, the smaller the quirk
>>> is.
>>
>> I think the problem is that from web developers po
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/22/11 12:57 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
>> The fewer properties that are exposed this way, the smaller the quirk
>> is.
>>
>
> I think the problem is that from web developers point of view the quirky
> behavior is _not_ exposing propertie
On 11/22/11 12:57 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
The fewer properties that are exposed this way, the smaller the quirk
is.
I think the problem is that from web developers point of view the quirky
behavior is _not_ exposing properties. Certainly in the short term...
In the long term, since we have to
+ian since this wording is actually in the HTML spec.
I'm not sure how exactly this should be specced. DOM4 could specify the two
interfaces and HTML could use those definitions?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/21/11 9:58 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
>> I think this is
On 11/21/11 9:58 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
I think this is the only sane solution to this problem. Lets split up
the Element interface. I'm not attached to these names, but something
like ElementExposed and Element. Element inherits (mixins?)
ElementExposed and only the methods on ElementExposed are
I think this is the only sane solution to this problem. Lets split up the
Element interface. I'm not attached to these names, but something
like ElementExposed and Element. Element inherits (mixins?) ElementExposed
and only the methods on ElementExposed are exposed to the on* lookup chain.
Element