W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Deprecating DOMFocusIn/DOMFocusOut

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:42:20 +0200
To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "Jacob Rossi" <t-jacobr@microsoft.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Travis Leithead" <travil@microsoft.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uxin0ue564w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:30:38 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 7/23/09 6:12 AM):
>> What existing content? It is far more likely existing content uses
>> focus and blur. At least as far as Web browsers are concerned and I
>> think it would make sense to evaluate a solution for Web browsers
>> here in isolation since not bloating the focus API would be great.
>
> SVG content uses DOMFocusIn, DOMFocusOut, and DOMActivate, particularly  
> on mobiles.

Do you have pointers? Such content would fail in Opera, for instance.


> I agree that not bloating APIs is a good goal, but unfortunately, we  
> have legacy implementations and content to deal with... remember that  
> bit about "backwards compatibility", and "paving the cowpaths" (with  
> regards to focusin and focusout), and "documenting existing behavior"?  
> Do you take those principles seriously, or not?

They are principles, not black and white rules. Backwards compatibility for instance does not have to matter if only two relatively non-important pages depend on a certain behavior and we can greatly simplify the Web platform. Adding focusin and focusout has nothing to do with paving the cowpaths. Paving the cowpaths is about adopting certain authoring patterns, not proprietary features from a single vendor no other vendor thought are worth copying. It's like endorsing VML, but on a smaller scale.


>>> but that all implementation should use the replacement events
>>> instead. Unless they have a market need, implementations that don't
>>> already support deprecated events should not support them in future
>>> versions.
>>
>> Then I do not see much value in deprecation.
>
> Your employer expressed a different opinion on yesterday's telcon, as  
> have many other people.

Charles and I indeed do not always agree. I'm sure the same happens in other companies.

I have actually seen support on this mailing list for not complicating matters further and support for simplifying matters, if feasible. From Maciej, Boris, and Stewart; all implementors.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:43:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:52 UTC