Standardising code - see commit message

[adamsilver]

...of conditionals etc

[adamsilver]

I wasn't sure about the IE8- prong for getEventTarget as it was repeating some of the logic for the "degrades in IE8-" prong.

Also, I have made an assumption that it doesn't need feature detection as your intention was for it to be put in a conditional comment.

Also, the way you have written the IE8- prong suggests that e.srcElement could never be a text node. Is that right?

[gibletto]

Would you use @cc comments to fork or load the script via <!--[if lte IE 8]> or whatever? I guess it depends on if you want one script to handle all cases, or conditionally load a second script when using IE8-

[adamsilver]

It would be <!--[if lte IE 8]> (conditional comments) that I am referring to and not conditional compilation (http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/conditionalcompile.shtml)

[gibletto]

Any builder would need to generate the both scripts then, but that's much of a muchness right now I guess!

[adamsilver]

Yes, David has mentioned this in CLJ posts, but am waiting for his input on this.

[david-mark]

Right. Conditional comments as you can't target a specific IE (MSHTML) version with conditional compilation. The idea is that it is up to the developer to determine whether they want one or two files.

As for getEventTarget, it doesn't have any forked renditions. I think I posted two renditions, one that can only be used with an attachListener that degrades in IE 8- and the other one is universal. The builder chooses the one that is appropriate based on the specific degradation point.

But I think we should just create getEventTarget along with attachListener. The forked rendition of attachListener would need to create either the first getEventTarget rendition or a new one that just always returns e.srcElement.

And yes, srcElement is always an element reference (never a text node or anything else). That's an MSHTML-ism that predates all of the standard DOM specifications.

So I will go ahead and merge these. I am too busy to go over them at the moment, will review all of the changes in the near future. I assume that any "pull" I merge can be pushed back out if needed, but I doubt that would be necessary at this stage.

Thanks for helping out!