On 9/8/11 8:23 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
function(event) {
with(event.target.ownerDocument) {
with(event.target.form || {}) {
with(event.target) {
alert(x);
}
}
}
}
This is almost exactly how Chrome implements it. It's all sorts of
buggy. See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?i
I've always assumed that if I do e.setAttribute("onclick", "alert(x)"),
the resulting event handler function is (or works like) this:
function(event) {
with(event.target.ownerDocument) {
with(event.target.form || {}) {
with(event.target) {
alert(x);
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Simon Pieters wrote:
> > Modified: source
> > ===
> > --- source 2011-05-05 22:03:52 UTC (rev 6087)
> > +++ source 2011-05-05 22:45:13 UTC (rev 6088)
> > @@ -105238,7 +105238,6 @@
> >Use an explicit form and
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
> For implementors, yes, but it's not really helpful for authors. For
> authors it would be more helpful to be able to detect if an event is
> supported on a particular element (or document or window) by checking if
> the event handler is supported. Cu
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:15:48 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/8/11 4:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
> as far as I know Opera is currently the only browser that supports
> both script.onload and script.onreadystatechange, and this is causing
> us compa
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/8/11 4:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
> > as far as I know Opera is currently the only browser that supports
> > both script.onload and script.onreadystatechange, and this is causing
> > us compatibility problems because many scripts set both an
On 9/8/11 4:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
as far as I know Opera is currently the only browser that supports both
script.onload and script.onreadystatechange, and this is causing us
compatibility problems because many scripts set both and expect only one
of them to run. For this reason, we p
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
>
> Siterer Ian Hickson :
>
> > Note that I recently checked in some changes to
Siterer Ian Hickson :
Note that I recently checked in some changes to
A far greater problem is the lack of standardization of a protocol for
comment submittal. If the IETF were to standardize such a protocol,
would it not make more sense to distribute comments via the same channel?
That seems like a cleaner long-term solution than changing every stream
format out
On 2011-09-08 08:26, Jens O. Meiert wrote:
Please clarify -- (a) the decisions do not make sense or (b) not applying
them doesn't make sense?
My main concern are the number of differences between the WHATWG and
the W3C version, hence the question whether we’re on it at all to
improve this.
I'
11 matches
Mail list logo
