W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] Device proximity and light events

From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:45:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO8i3ic4GNKq6DdZ_=MXcr4FpPkHLJ42J7Zpz7byfMpA7BZZ3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
There was a related discussion on the mailing list:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-November/029252.html

I also found a message from Hixie to me, related to that thread: "I agree
entirely that if an event has a use case, it makes sense for it to have an
event handler attribute."


On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> On May 9, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >> Where was that discussion?
> >
> > This came up at the WebApps F2F and there was general agreement that
> > if we added new events adding new event handler attributes would make
> > sense.
>
> Was there any notes taken?
>
>
> > Feature detection of some kind is useful as forcing people to
> > do UA sniffing leads to badness.
>
> I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done.   I just don't think it as
> important as most people.  For example, even if the device is present, it
> may be off or not responding.  In that case, you'll have a feature that
> tests positive and never receive any events.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:45:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT