W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: ISSUE-3 (eventType): [Progress] [D3E]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:30:34 +0900
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ucw188v3wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:19:16 +0900, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:25:42 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile  
> <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>> The usecase makes sense to me. But I wonder if it should be defined in  
>> DOM 3 events instead?
>
> DOM Events should define a way for other specifications to introduce  
> their own event interfaces in a convenient way. The other specifications  
> can then use that to easily describe FooEvent, FooEvent.init..., and  
> "FooEvent" (for constructing). It would be quite a burden if DOM Events  
> would actually needed to be updated each time we introduce a new event  
> interface.

Indeed. Although that drives us to the question of how to make sure that  
events are not conflicting, when different specs can be written, I figure  
all that is an issue for DOM 3 events.

In part the question arises for progress events in particular because it  
is actually being defined by the same WG that is defining DOM 3 events, so  
it could reasonably expect to work with the developers for that spec in a  
way that is not available to most people who might try to create some kind  
of eventType...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 23:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:26 GMT