W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2011

Re: addEventListener with side effects

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:21:11 +0100
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ekd7c79lsljjpighds6492olpp49ebdhh6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:36:14 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>  
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:32 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>>> To work around this potential mis-design, specific wording was added to
>>> the DeviceOrientation spec: "Implementations may fire the event if they
>>> have reason to believe the page does not have sufficiently fresh data"
>> It may just be me but that really smells like weasel wording. Maybe this  
>> is LC feedback fodder?
>It is. But it is basically deployed all over already and in this case  
>indistinguishable. It's not a pattern that should be followed however.

You could start with the test case I proposed in the discussion: use two
listeners and see whether registering the second triggers the first one.
If it does, you could argue about the meaning of "reason" "sufficiently"
but you would be unlikely to convince a crowd, so, yes, distinguishable.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 13:21:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:51 UTC