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

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:14:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8Jj0qC72H2XHRnKkZhJqip0dwZR9zR0e+Vn1xdKhL7nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 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. :-)

I think adding EventTarget to the chain is a simplification as it
makes that interface more consistent with the majority of other ones.

>> 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?

Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any
of the types listed in the following email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html

I'm also still interested in hearing feedback from other implementers.
So far only two have spoken up and have both been in favor of making
the argument an object.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:15:57 GMT

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