Talk:DOM event

While the inline model is not as flexible as other models, it is the only model that allow the registration of event handlers with custom arguments, e.g. name in the helloWorld method.

Not quite. Instead the browser creates an anonymous function that handles the event and that function calls the function with the argument specified. Eric B. and Rakim 22:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

onDomFocusOut

According to google (and a bunch of others search engines) the ondomfocusout attribute is metioned in any other place but here. What's the source for this information?

I have no idea when you wrote this (and I'm too lazy to check), but try this DOMFocusOut --Execvator 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DOM=?

Say what DOM stands for! What is * in "DOM*"?

DOM stands for Document Object Model. What is in it is the elements, methods, and properties of the document. (Bjorn Tipling 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

"DOM*" refers to every event whose name begins with "DOM". The star is being used as a wildcard character. (I've made this clearer in the article.) --81.178.31.210 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(un)load event description

The description for the load an unload event was 'wrong'. They apply to both the document and elements. As it was, it sounded like they only applied to the document. I made some changes to reflect this, though it would be good if someone could rewrite it in a better way. And yes, it is 'and' for load and 'or' for unload[1]. --Execvator 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I see no real explanation given for marking this page a copyright violation. While I'm not directly contesting the allegation, a link to the quirksmode website doesn't tell me anything. There isn't even any major plagiarism that I can see; even if there were, this doesn't necessarily infringe on copyright.

The only copyright notice posted by PPK on his site refers to copying an entire page (or the entire site), which certainly hasn't happened here. Lucideer (talk)

By default anything on that site is copyrighted. He disclaims copyright for his code, but that's not the issue here. It's explanations about the DOM that were being copied here. One of the most blatant aspects of the infringement is the "important drawbacks" part, which is copying not just facts, but his editorial opinions.

The solution here is to revert the newest version of the page before infringement was added. This requires some checking. Superm401 - Talk 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the explanation. I've not been on Wikipedia long, so I'm certainly no authority on policy, but I thought it was a little bizarre to completely obscure a page without comprehensive justification being written somewhere. If the issue is to be resolved, it's handy to now what that specific issue actually is.

Secondly, only one of the three listed "drawbacks" are taken from PPK's site (number 3 about the this keyword). I'd hardly call that blatant. Nor do I see it as his unique opinion, as a reference to window is, as he says, "completely useless". This surely constitutes logical fact purely based on the absence of a use for the reference.

The only issue I might have is that the first two aren't necessarily drawbacks (even if it is general consensus that they are), and calling them that violates Wikipedia:NPV. But changing the word drawbacks to something like inconsistencies would rectify this.

lucideer 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What I don't think you realize is that this started as a blatant copyright infringement (look at [2]), and just became a little more subtle over time. A derivative work of a copyright infringement is still a copyright infringement. I had to go back to before the violation, which in this case, means February 16, 2005.

I detected no violations before that, though I can't rule it out because the person that added the violation also started the rest of the page too. It's very unfortunate no one caught this sooner. Superm401 - Talk 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. I see 4 lines of text, which state simple fact, in plain english, that were taken from the referenced ppk page. Two years ago.

When compared to the W3C model, the Microsoft model has two important drawbacks:

Events always bubble, no capturing possibility.

The event handling function is referenced, not copied, so the this keyword always refers to the window and is completely useless.

1. These 4 tiny lines have since been modified, so their current incarnation should not infringe.
2. "A derivative work of a copyright infringement is still a copyright infringement." - a derivitave work is a creative derivation, of a creative work. These lines state fact. They are purely informational, and completely unoriginal, both here and on ppk's site. As you said above, he has copyrighted his code - something creative in nature.

I've mentioned before that I'm a new Wikipedia user, and tbh I feel a little intimidated even having this debate. But to be perfectly frank, I find it shocking that a user with your experience and and level of contribution to the community truly believes the best solution here is to revert an article on an extremely dynamic, fast-moving topic to a version that is two and a half years out of date! - lucideer 06:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after reading over what I wrote above, and thinking about it, I'm fairly sure there should be no copyvio issue here whatsoever as per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works. - lucideer 07:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the violation has since been modified. It still had to be removed. Text that was not a copyright violation can now be added back. You are incorrect that this can be considered a non-creative work. Judging something as an advantage or disadvantage is inherently opinionated, not factual. Superm401 - Talk 09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added back the text other than the part you flagged as copyvio as you said. What I've then done is taken the points from the DOM2 section and copied and pasted them directly into the Microsoft section. I then reworded accordingly.

I also added a line referring to the this keyword, as I feel omitting this would deeply confuse many readers of the article (it would confuse me). I have made every attempt to make that line comply with NPOV, keeping it as short and simple as possible. It is my view that calling it a drawback is a statement of fact, not opinion. However as you disagree, I have not commented in any way on the this keyword, as per your preference.

Browser Comparison for DOM Events?

Shouldn't there be a browser comparison of DOM events somewhere - like there are with HTML5 support, etc. It could be helpful since some browser support some events and some do not. Case in point Firefox recently added support for the readystatechange event - on this page it is listed as a "Microsoft-specific event" even though it is no longer exclusive to Micrsoft.

Does anyone else agree or disagree with this?

Ryan Jones (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)