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

Re: createTouch uses undefined interface AbstractView

From: Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 04:05:04 +0900
Cc: "public-webevents@w3.org WG" <public-webevents@w3.org>
Message-Id: <177A8343-6011-4896-A6DE-845799674D26@opera.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 3/20/13 1:39 PM, ext Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 3/20/13 12:47 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> Boris - I updated the spec per your requests [1], [2].
>>> For the purposes of Last Call comment tracking, would you please review
>>> the changes and let us know if the changes are OK or not.
>> The changes are mostly fine.
>> The only one that's not is the change to item().  I think what you want is more like this:
>>  returns the Touch at the specified index in the list or null if the
>>  index is not less than the length of the list.
> Done.
>> and you want a separate bit of prose either in a section 4.3 or at toplevel in section 4 that says:
>>  A TouchList object's supported property indices are the numbers in
>>  the range 0 to one less than the length of the list.
> Done.
>> with bonus points for "supported property indices" linking to http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-supported-property-indices
> Reference to WebIDL added but not a direct link to that definition.
> The changeset is <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/0edc668e7910>.
>> P.S.  An editorial nit: "Return type: getter Touch" is pretty weird; I assume that's being auto-generated by some software that's not actually using a full-fledged WebIDL parser...
> Yeah, that's an artifact of ReSpec that I don't know how to fix but I'll make sure the "getter" is removed before the spec is copied to w3.org/TR/.

I was encountering this *exact* problem while attempting to make this change. I'll look into this,
as it seems like a respec bug that we'll need to work around.

I recall replying to this thread on the 18th, but for some ridiculous reason the webmail client
decided to only send it to Ms2ger (I'm not sure about this bit, but I find it very likely) - and not
leave it in my sent box either - so I don't have the original mail.. but the points were:

1) Proposed changes look good.
2) I'm on it.

(2) doesn't matter anymore it seems, thanks a lot for looking into this.

Sangwhan Moon, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 19:05:47 UTC

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