<ul><li><ul><li>... onclick() only for one node ?

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Jörg Weule, Nov 25, 2011.

  1. Hello,

    at <ul><li><ul><li>...</li></ul></li></ul> I got the click event on the
    whole tree and want to process the event for only on one node.

    How can i stop the event processing calling my function for any node at
    the hirachie?

    With kind regards

    Jörg Weule, Nov 25, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jörg Weule

    Arno Welzel Guest

    Jörg Weule, 2011-11-25 16:10:
    You have to stop event bubbling in your handler.
    Arno Welzel, Nov 25, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. If this is really only for one node, you can call the stopPropagation()
    method (standards-compliant) or set the event object's `cancelBubble'
    property to `true' (MSHTML) in the event listener. However, the drawback of
    this is that *no* element "upwards" in the tree will receive that event
    then, which may not be wanted.

    If the latter is important, or if this instead for multiple nodes at the
    same nesting level, you should not do this. For then you need to stop event
    progagation at every child node. This comparably inefficient approach is
    propagated by, e. g., jQuery and other selector-based libraries, where you
    would first select elements by a criterion (usually a `class' attribute
    value) and then add an event listener to each matching element.

    It is therefore better (for bubbling events like `click') to add only one
    event listener to an ancestor element (here: the `ul' element) in which you
    compare the event target against the object the event has bubbled up to
    (e.target == this, or e.srcElement == this in MSHTML [do not use
    attachEvent()]), and only perform the action for relevant event targets. In
    case of remaining ambiguity, you can use e. g. the event target's `class'
    attribute value as well. Be aware that text nodes can be event targets,

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 25, 2011
  4. thanks for that.

    Not I can write <div onClick()="doMyFunction(event.target)"> to get the
    inner clicked element but Firefox is not accepting

    var l = document.createElement("li");
    l.onclick = function(){ doMyFunction(event.target) ; } ;

    Here I got "event is not defined".


    Jörg Weule, Nov 25, 2011
  5. The proper approach is
    var l = document.createElement("li");
    l.onclick = function(evt) {
    at least for Mozilla, Opera, Safari, Chrome and IE 9 (in IE 9 mode).
    For earlier IE versions you need
    var l = document.createElement("li");
    l.onclick = function(evt) {
    var event = evt || window.event;
    doMyFunction(event.target || event.srcElement);
    Martin Honnen, Nov 25, 2011
  6. Applying the techniques explained at
    you could write

    var l = document.createElement("li");
    l.onclick = handler;
    function handler(e)
    if (!e) var e = window.event;
    e.cancelBubble = true;
    if (e.stopPropagation) e.stopPropagation();
    // do the real handling here
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 25, 2011
  7. Of cause: l.onclick = function(evt) {...}
    One signal handler at the top ul sounds reasonable and works great.

    Thanks a lot.

    Jörg Weule, Nov 25, 2011
  8. If one uses the more error-prone boolean shortcut syntax instead of `typeof'
    testing, it should be

    l.onclick = function(evt) {
    var event = evt || window.event;
    if (event)
    doMyFunction(event.target || event.srcElement);

    as one should not assume that if `evt' type-converts to false,
    `window.event' must refer to an object. However, that approach is
    proprietary, even though for historical reasons it is probably most

    The standards-compliant approach is, and the proper approach has become

    l.addEventListener("click", function(evt) {
    }, false);

    since IE/MSHTML 9 supports it in Standards Mode. Until that remains less
    compatible (there is still IE/MSHTML < 9), using a wrapper method like
    jsx.dom.addEventListener() [1] is recommended, so as not to overwritethe
    primary event listener if one has been added, e. g., with the `onclick'
    attribute, and not to interfere with the order of event listeners of an

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 25, 2011
  9. That `VariableDeclaration' is pointless; it also reduces runtime efficiency
    slightly. The Variable Object (or the Variable Environment) already had the
    variable `e' instantiated per the function's argument list, so the
    VariableDeclaration has no effect (other than checking for a previous
    binding, which is what reduces runtime efficiency). [ES 5.1, section 10.5]
    One should *either* attempt to set the `cancelBubble' property to `true'
    *or* attempt to call the stopPropagation() method, depending on what is the
    result of a feature test, because `e' refers to a host object and should not
    be accidentally augmented. To that end, jsx.dom.createEventListener()
    solves this with

    e2.stopPropagation = (function(e) {
    if (jsx_object.isMethod(e, "stopPropagation"))
    return function() {

    if (typeof e.cancelBubble != "undefined")
    return function() {
    e.cancelBubble = true;

    `e2' is a reference to a native user-defined object that is passed in place
    of the event host object (referred to by `e') to the wrapped event listener
    then (revision 233, line 459):

    return f.call(this, e2);

    Which allows to call e.stopPropagation() in the wrapped listener (f)
    regardless which DOM implementation is supported.

    A similar wrapper method exists for the preventDefault() method. But it
    turns out that the `returnValue' property, which is the proprietary
    replacement for the preventDefault() method, cannot be feature-tested.
    So `returnValue' is used if preventDefault() is unavailable regardless.

    The original event object is available with the `originalEvent' property
    of the object referred to by `e2'.

    AISB, the proprietary event handler properties should be avoided.

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 25, 2011
  10. Jörg Weule

    J.R. Guest

    ACK as to 'VariableDeclaration is pointless', although that reduction in
    runtime efficiency, if noticeable / measurable, should be dependent on
    the actual JavaScript Engine in use.
    "Either cancelBubble property or stopPropagation() method" means only
    one check is necessary, not both, as there is not a 3rd option. So:

    e2.cancelPropagation = function (e) {
    e = e || window.event;
    if (typeof e.stopPropagation !== 'undefined') { // W3C standard
    } else { e.cancelBubble = true; } // IE

    someObj.cancelDefault = function (e) {
    e = e || window.event;
    if (typeof e.preventDefault !== 'undefined') { // W3C standard
    } else { e.returnValue = false; } // IE

    J.R., Nov 25, 2011
  11. And, in reality, as the page I mentioned says, you can assign to
    e.cancelBubble without a check, as adding a property to an object causes
    no real harm.

    There are of course people who just have to complain about any code that
    solves a problem, claiming it to be risky, with some vague abstract
    arguments. They don't identify any real harm. And the added code or
    different, longer, more complex code they may suggest of course causes
    much bigger risks than those it is claimed to avoid.
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 26, 2011
  12. There are only two JavaScript engines (in different languages and versions).
    Whether the difference is noticeable depends not only on the ECMAScript
    implementation. However, a conforming implementation must implement that
    algorithm one way or the other, so there is without doubt a reduction in
    runtime efficiency.
    You are mistaken.
    Inefficient and error-prone.
    Error-prone and insufficient.
    That would augment the host object referred to by `e' if it did not have a
    `cancelBubble' property.
    Inefficient and error-prone.
    Error-prone and insufficient.
    You are missing the point, which is that an exception to the rule must be
    made with this property. Your "IE" also is an oversimplification. You
    would have known all this had you read my postings in this thread more

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 26, 2011
  13. Your arrogance is the cause of your ignorance, which blinds you for the
    possibilities that await you.

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 26, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.