W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2011

RE: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:04:14 +0000
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B38381993E3@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
FWIW, I like the idea. The current indirection through an interface annotated with [Callback] has historically been hard for newbies to WebIDL to figure out. Anne's concept helps reduce the indirection.

Another syntax could be:

addEventListener(DOMString type, [Callback(Event)] EventListener? listener, optional boolean capture)

Which re-uses the "constructor" parameter syntax (in an extended attribute) that we already have in WebIDL.

From: ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:05 AM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

I support this. While it's not the API I'd design from scratch, I think it's what we're stuck with and the simplicity provided by doing this throughout the platform is worth it.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com<mailto:annevk@opera.com>> wrote:
It seems that all callbacks use handleEvent() and we cannot change that at this point I think. We should simplify callback syntax to a) make IDL easier to read and b) ensure consistency throughout the platform.

addEventListener(DOMString type, Callback(Event)? listener, optional boolean capture)

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 18:04:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:45 UTC