- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:35:22 +0300
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 07/11/2011 09:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> 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. > > I mean in general, on any interface. > > IMHO nothing should inherit from EventTarget. That some interfaces do in > the specs today is a relatively new development and IMHO one that will > complicate the platform in the future. How will that complicate the platform in the future? -Olli > > >>>> 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 addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0237.html >
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:36:10 UTC