W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: addEventListener naming

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:21:31 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660909121921x60b1c19ai32de092d5e8138a3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 4. More methods for the developer community to learn. While learning
>>> both isn't needed to write code, it is needed to read other peoples
>>> code. Ability to read and understand other peoples code is a major
>>> strength of the web platform.
>>
>> Agreed, but we already have a proliferation of new shorthand method names
>> through script libs... might it not be better to have some standard shorter
>> names that are better documented?
>
> True. If lots of libraries are supplying short-hand names, then it's
> an indication that there's a real problem that needs to be solved. Do
> a lot of libraries add shorthands for addEventListener?

None that I know.

What the popular libraries do is provide a mechanism that works in IE
and DOM browsers, essentially, but generally have a lot of problems
with that.

A good reason for designing a new Event interface would be to get
Microsoft involved in the process.

And the flip side is that if Microsoft won't get behind it, it will be
just as limited.

A new interface proposal should identifies and address actual problems
and should be usable in a way that:
  1) the feature is detectable
  2) a fallback strategy can be used

Garrett
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2009 02:22:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:03 GMT