W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [Clipboard] Processing model feedback (and other)

From: Hallvord R. M. Steen <hallvord@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:12:55 +0100
To: "Glenn Maynard" <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Message-ID: <op.v9vtztb4a3v5gv@hr-opera.oslo.osa>
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:05:23 +0100, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

>> * The "Process the default action" step should instead talk about  
>> whether
>>> or not the  
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/**raw-file/tip/Overview.html#**
>>> canceled-flag<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#canceled-flag>of  
>>> the event ended up being set and what to do when it is not.
> It's not clear to me.  It makes it sound like you always perform the  
> stuff
> in step 8, since there's no conditional.  I have to guess what's actually
> intended.

I've looked at rewriting it but I'm not sure how. Cancelling the default  
action has different outcomes for the different types of events. Some of  
the outcomes are also easier to understand if you think that the default  
action *is* no-op (rather than thinking "skip handling the default  
action").

> There's an awkwardness to the steps in section 5.  Based on the style I'm
> used to seeing in other modern Web specs, I'd write it along these lines
> (note that HTML formatting is used below):

Thanks a lot, I've used your suggestion almost verbatim.

> Step 4 has an "i.e."; if you feel something needs additional explanation,
> it probably belongs in a note.

Fixed.

> The bits about "the focused node" and "the
> context is editable" above should probably reference something specific  
> in HTML.

Quite possibly, but I'm not sure where to find it..

> Step 5 switched from a procedural style to a descriptive style.

Fixed.

> Section 6 says "The default action of a synthetic paste event".  There is
> no "default action" for events fired by scripts (except for one or two
> unfortunate backwards-compatibility hacks).

OK. I thought it would be a cool feature, but nevermind - I've reversed  
the statements and all related tests.

-- 
Hallvord R. M. Steen, Core Tester, Opera Software
http://www.opera.com http://my.opera.com/hallvors/
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 16:12:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT