W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107111757240.23910@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT