- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:04:04 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to > create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future. I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting to make objects inherit from EventTarget. :-) > It's a judgement call. I think we're just making different judgements on > how likely it is that we'll need to extend this in the future. So far I haven't seen any suggestions that would need a change to the constructor. We shouldn't try to solve problems we can't even imagine yet; how could we possibly evaluate our solutions? I'm all for designing for the future; in fact many of the APIs in the specs I edit have future directions already designed and specced out, but just commented out. Here, however, I really don't see why we would expect the constructor to need extensions, especially extensions that would need an object. (I also don't really see what's special about this one in particular that means it should have this but other constructors should not.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:04:28 UTC