W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > March 2007

RE: Review comments of Editors Draft of Progress Events

From: Andrew Sledd <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:36:01 +0100
Message-ID: <234EB4699C751A4A95DF4FD8D041BBFD6EA9A5@SESTHSRV10.zoomon.local>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <public-webapi@w3.org>, <chaals@opera.com>

Bjoern,
I of course support the use of the interface for extension and new event types, where approriately implemented. However for the event types defined in this spec it must be null, musn't it?  The current wording needs to be tightened up to signify this. Possibly additional wording in Conformance section or a new sesction to specify how extending this should be done.

Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: den 9 mars 2007 05:09
To: Andrew Sledd
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org; chaals@opera.com
Subject: Re: Review comments of Editors Draft of Progress Events

* Andrew Sledd wrote:
>initProgressEventNS description needs to make the statement that "the 
>value of the namespaceURI argument must be null."

I don't think so. The point of having the method is that this allows others to re-use the interface for new event types, for example, for proprietary browser extensions or for rarely used event types defined by other organizations, neither of which should define event types in no namespace without consulting the WebAPI Working Group.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 9 March 2007 04:33:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT