From 72ef359fc02d6e2cccc0e0753a4f0db145df5fa5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: simmayor Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:27:39 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Grammar --- .../article.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/2-ui/3-event-details/3-mousemove-mouseover-mouseout-mouseenter-mouseleave/article.md b/2-ui/3-event-details/3-mousemove-mouseover-mouseout-mouseenter-mouseleave/article.md index 25bd3856..30627f3c 100644 --- a/2-ui/3-event-details/3-mousemove-mouseover-mouseout-mouseenter-mouseleave/article.md +++ b/2-ui/3-event-details/3-mousemove-mouseover-mouseout-mouseenter-mouseleave/article.md @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ Try entering the blue element and then moving the mouse on the red one -- and wa So, for a handler that does not take `target` into account, it looks like we left the parent in `mouseout` in `(2)` and returned back to it by `mouseover` in `(3)`. -If we perform some actions on entering/leaving the element, then we'll get a lot of extra "false" runs. For simple stuff may be unnoticeable. For complex things that may bring unwanted side-effects. +If we perform some actions on entering/leaving the element, then we'll get a lot of extra "false" runs. For simple stuff that may be unnoticeable. For complex things that may bring unwanted side-effects. We can fix it by using `mouseenter/mouseleave` events instead.