- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:27:23 +0200
- To: "Olli Pettay" <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, Olli@pettay.fi
- Cc: "Matt Brubeck" <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>, public-webevents@w3.org
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:02:15 +0200, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote: > On 09/22/2011 12:25 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 1) In your earlier email you indicated it was not implemented >> consistently. >> 2) It seems rather hard to remove if you have a test suite that requires >> it. > > I don't buy this. We're removing/changing all sorts of stuff now from > DOM which are in DOM 2 test suite. The same way v1 testsuite could have > tests for init*Event, but it could be removed from v2 testsuite. So you are saying that even though we know we are going to remove it, we should add it anyway? The DOM2 features are vastly different. When those were implemented it was not with the expectation they would be removed soon. And removing ill-designed DOM2 features is certainly not a cost-free effort. It is rather cumbersome. > But I don't care too much if we have init*Event or not. > It doesn't really cause any harm to have it, if we can have it > implemented consistently. Further propagating known bad APIs does cause harm in that authors will be confused. > (For certain testing having some way to initialize event would be good.) So implement event constructors. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 13:28:31 UTC