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

Re: Marked addEventListenerNS and removeEventListenerNS At Risk

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:49:04 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-id: <84EDEDBB-3ECF-4D5D-AC1E-6025E336CB6E@apple.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

On Sep 12, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Anne van Kesteren  
> <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:39:58 +0200, Jonas Sicking  
>> <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>> Finally, it doesn't seem like namespaced events even solves a real
>>> problem. If you want to avoid naming conflicts you can call your
>>> events "com.example.www.myEvent", or even
>>>
>>> "http://www.example.com/myEventsNameSpace/applications/mail/emailReceived 
>>> ".
>>
>> The latter would actually not work due to the NCName restrictions,  
>> though
>> maybe that should be removed too to make this possible.
>
> Yeah, that seems like a good idea.
>
> For the record, I think I should fess up to being an advocate for the
> namespaced methods way back when we discussed it in Oslo in 2006. I
> believe Maciej was advocating for nuking the namespaced methods. I now
> believe that he was right and I was wrong :)

For the record - I still think the namespaced event methods should be  
nuked from orbit. They add nontrivial complexity to all event  
processing, don't solve any real problems, and aren't needed to  
support any existing Web content. I don't think we should make  
browsers implement them just because they might be used in some non- 
Web contexts. +1 for killing them off.

  - Maciej
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2009 21:49:45 GMT

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