W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [PointerLock] Should there be onpointerlockchange/onpointerlockerror properties defined in the spec

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:34:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9fBppDrMag7fhTZTCv5emfTtRVquC4smMRVCP_2BHUJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com> wrote:
>> Pending agreement to add properties to the fullscreen specification, I agree
>> this should be included in the specification.
>
> I think HTML should maintain the registry and policy for on*
> attributes insofar they concern Window/Document/HTMLElement objects.
> http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ only fires on Document, fwiw.

That doesn't seem either scalable or documentation/implementation
friendly. It means that someone reading the X feature spec (to
implement it, to use it or to review it) will have to also go look at
the HTML spec. And know that he/she needs to do so. And it means that
the development of the X feature spec is blocked on getting the
attention of the HTML spec authors.

Isn't this the reason we adding "partial interface" to WebIDL?

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 03:35:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT