- From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:35:30 -0600
- To: www-dom@w3.org
Being able to pass in either a JS function or an object sounds desirable in those instances sounds desirable, but I don't see justification for it in the current ecmascript binding description. I assume that you do not anticipate any implementation difficulties if it took either form. On Mar 11, 2004, at 12:12 AM, Johnny Stenback wrote: > > Curt Arnold wrote: > [...] >> It is pretty explicit that a function object is used for >> EventListeners and NodeFilters. Am I right in interpreting that the >> DOMErrorHandler, UserDataHandler, LSSerializerFilter, LSParserFilter >> and ResourceResolver are passed as objects, something like: > > I would argue that it should be able to pass a JS function as any > callback interfaces that contain only one method (i.e. one method, no > attributes, but constants are ok). That would mean that one can pass a > JS function as a DOMErrorHandler, UserDataHandler, or > LSResourceResolver, but not as a LSSerializerFilter nor as a > LSParserFilter. > > -- > jst >
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 11:35:41 UTC