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: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:44:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9atF9RS8GqjP3Thqk1ar_G4hfY5pWzkL8A6_Y=5mLUtw@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 Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Well the other perspective is that someone looking to refactor event
> handlers (as has happened in e.g. Gecko in recent history) has just
> one place to look through.

This seems like a weird case to optimize for. Refactoring the whole
event system implementation isn't something that implementors are
going to do very often. Much less often than implementing new
specifications hopefully. And definitely not something that reviewers
or authors will do.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 10:45:41 GMT

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