On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:19:26 +0200, Jacob Rossi
<[email protected]> wrote:
Note: For programming languages which do not allow optional method
parameters, such as Java, the implementation may provide two
EventTarget.addEventListener methods, one with 2 parameters, and one
with 3 parameters.
Is this a note or is it normative? You can't have both.
This is a note that suggests a workaround for implementations in
languages that don't support optional arguments. It's not normative. An
implementation may do this, or it may not-up to the implementer (since
optional useCapture isn't required).
'may' is an RFC2119 term. Don't use it in notes.
If a listener was registered twice, once for the capture and target
phases and once for the target and bubbling phases, each must be
removed separately.
It's not clear if this is a UA requirement.
This is intended for authors:
target.addEventListener("foo",bar,false);
target.addEventListener("foo",bar,true);
target.removeEventListener("foo",bar,false);
This only removes the first of the two listeners.
It doesn't look like a note to me. It looks like a conformance requirement
(since it contains the word 'must'). If it's targeting authors, it means
they're being non-conforming if they don't remove their event listeners
any time they register a listener twice (one capture and one bubbling). If
you intend it to be a note, clearly mark it as a note and don't use
RFC2119 terms.
The content authors should also remove their EventListener from its
EventTarget after they have completed using the listener.
I wonder why this is a "should".
It's a coding "best practices" suggestion towards authors.
'should' is not a suggestion, it's a conformance requirement.
...
It seems to me you need to be more careful in your usage of RFC2119
keywords. Also see http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
