W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Progress Events normative text

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:57:41 +0200
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ussmifkx64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:35:15 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> I continue to think that RFC2119 terms are overused, used unnecessarily
> and redundantly in a manner that will cause future pain, and used in
> manners that do not directly map to clear testable features, which I  
> think is problematic. However, I don't really know how to convince you  
> that this is a real problem.

I just took a look at the draft and agree with this assessment.

As far as I can tell the only requirements this specification needs to  
make are regarding how to implement the interface. When events are  
dispatched etc. is up to other specifications.

I can see some value in this specification giving advice as to what the  
names of the events should be and what order they should be dispatched in,  
but that should only be advice to specification authors, not requirements  
on user agents. The requirements on user agents should be elsewhere.

I can also see some value in this specification providing macros. E.g.  
defining what it means to "dispatch a progress event called x" so that not  
every specification has to do that again and that they are encouraged to  
do the same thing with regards to whether events bubble, can be cancelled,  
etc. (HTML5 does this as well for some event types.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 14:58:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT