W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: publish a new Working Draft of DOM Core; comment deadline March 2

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:52:24 +0100
To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Cc: "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Michael Champion" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.vrtkpjy164w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 06:10:47 +0100, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> On 3/1/11, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> These are the reasons they are intertwined:
>>
>>   * document.createEvent()
> That was previously DocumentEvent interface, IIRC.

Implementations put it on Document instead. And of course we could then  
still define it in a separate document (we are planning to introduce  
"extends" or some such for that), but it is more convenient to not do so.


>>   * mutation events
> Why can't those be defined independently in Events. (not a fan of
> mutation events, BTW).

Nobody is a fan. They are dispatched directly as the result of method  
invocation and in some cases can even effect what exception the method  
needs to throw (as I understand it). So they are highly intertwined and  
defining them separately is not a good idea.


>>   * we want Node to inherit from EventTarget
> That can be stated in DOM Core. For example: The Node Interface
> implements EventTarget [Events Core].

Implements is different from inheritance. Again though, yes that would not  
require Events to be in the same document, it is just more convenient.


>>   * both events and documents depend on the same tree concept
> How do XHR events or progress events depend on tree concept?

Indexed DB does. Not everything does, of course.


>>   * INVALID_STATE_ERR is shared
>
> XHR and Event instances can have invalid states, but should those
> exceptions to have the same name and numerical representation?

That is the convention we have used thus far, yes (not just for  
XMLHttpRequest). I doubt we will change that at this point.


> [...]
>
> I noticed that the DOM Core spec uses "throw" instead of "raise". I
> don't mind the change but it might be something that matters for IDL
> formalism.

This will probably converge over time.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 12:53:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT