W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui@w3.org > November 2012

Re: IndieUI Event Interfaces

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:06:32 +0100
Message-ID: <5097E408.9040309@lachy.id.au>
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
CC: public-indie-ui <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
On 2012-11-05 16:43, James Craig wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-05 15:31, James Craig wrote:
>>> Unless I hear objections, I am going to remove the IDL descriptions
>>> altogether b/c I’m not sure they add much value.
>>
>> If you do this, will you then define that the events defined here implement the UIEvent interface?
>
> Besides the implementation details, why does is matter?

I am only asking because it's relevant to the implementation details.

For example, the UIScrollRequestEvent contains extra attributes that are 
not present in UIEvent, and so if scrollrequest was to implement UIEvent 
directly, then there would be questions about how the event conveys 
details about the request.  Otherwise, if you intend to retain those 
extra attributes, then you should also retain the relevant IDL.

> I could take a hybrid approach and list them as real words in the
> spec for the sake of TTS pronunciations, but also list the event key
> as a lowercased compound word.
>
> For example:
> Undo Request (undorequest)

That looks like an editorial issue, so I have no strong opinion either way.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 16:06:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 16:06:57 GMT