W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - Address Extensibility

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:42:19 +0200
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s8dk4tn664w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:38:05 +0200, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote:
> This is very silly, the VendorMember scheme is entirely stupid, it's  
> completely useless for authors, we can't do anything with it, and is  
> much worse than simple invented terms that eventually get standardised.

I didn't really like it either, I was hoping for comments :-) It seems  
extensibility in the DOM in general is a bit unaddressed.


> [...]
>
> Extension requirements similar to ECMAScript would be a much more  
> logical approach.

Pointer?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 20:42:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT