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

Re: createTouch uses undefined interface AbstractView

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:43:18 -0500
Message-ID: <51378036.6000804@nokia.com>
To: ext Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
CC: public-webevents@w3.org
On 3/6/13 12:04 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> That's a blast from the past 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/views.html#Views-AbstractView. 
> It should be WindowProxy, yes.

AbstractView has been the type of the view parameter since the [FPWD]. 
Perhaps one of the reasons to use that type was to not create a 
dependency on HTML5? Doug or Matt - would you please clarify.

If the type is changed to [WindowProxy], it would create a new 
dependency on HTML5 and that can lead to an issue when moving the spec 
to Recommendation, unless we have data/evidence WindowProxy's definition 
is stable and interoperably deployed. Do we have such data?

Boris - are there any other issues with the IDL in the [LC] spec?


[FPWD] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110505/>
[LC] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-touch-events-20130124/>

> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu 
> <mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu>> wrote:
>     https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html#extensions-to-the-document-interface
>     has:
>         Touch     createTouch (AbstractView view, EventTarget target,
>     long identifier, long pageX, long pageY, long screenX, long screenY);
>     But there is no AbstractView defined in WebIDL anywhere, so this
>     IDL is not valid and a WebIDL parser will reject it.
>     That first argument should probably just be a WindowProxy if
>     that's what's really meant.
>     -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 17:43:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:34 UTC