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

Re: convertKeyIdentifier

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:51:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4AB90085.9020607@w3.org>
To: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Hi, Anne-

Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 9/22/09 12:27 PM):
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:55:07 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> You might have meant the character value. We have already decided that
>>>> the character value (if it exists) will be the attribute value.
>>>
>>> So we will not have strings in the form of "U+xxxx" anymore?
>>
>> Please read the spec.
>
> I did. I don't understand why "U+xxxx" is still there so I was wondering
> if that was temporary.

The spec has everything that's at risk marked as such.  As I said in 
previous messages, I've just reworked the key identifiers section 
substantially, so if it were at risk, I would have marked it that way, 
or mentioned it on the list.


>>> That functionality seems to apply to charcter handling everywhere and is
>>> not at all specific to event handling so I think it would be
>>> inappropriate for the events specification.
>>
>> You may misunderstand what the DocumentEvent interface is for.
>
> It would be nice if you simply assumed that I did and went on from there.

I didn't mean disrespect by that.  I didn't understand before I talked 
with PLH (the previous editor) about this particular matter, and it was 
his suggestion to put it in DocumentEvent interface instead of waiting 
to put it in a new DOM Core spec (as I originally intended).


>> It's intended to extend the Document interface with methods and
>> attributes that are applicable to features defined in the events
>> specification, even if they don't directly deal with events.
>
> This is new then since you took over editing. Before that it only dealt
> with events.

Not so.  It may appear that way, but that was never the intent.


>> It deals directly with key identifiers and the key identifiers set
>> (for example, there are also named values, not just various
>> representations of the Unicode code points), so it's not just general
>> character handling. I don't want to cripple authors because of
>> misgivings about architectural purity...
>
> I don't understand why we cannot have a single list and rather need to
> have various identifiers for everything.

Because there are different uses for the different values, and the open 
Web platform currently doesn't have any way to deal with that.  This 
happens to be a convenient place to do that, especially in the context 
of the complexity of key events and i18n.


>> this is a directly related to DOM3 Events key identifiers, and it
>> needs to be implemented in that context. Mozilla and Microsoft have
>> already agreed that we need this, BTW.
>
> Well, I disagree. I do not see the point in having this method as I do
> not see the need for having multiple representations for everything in
> the first place in the context of DOM Level 3 Events.
>
> Furthermore I think putting createEvent on Document was a mistake in to
> begin with. Especially with the design we have now where DOM events are
> often used outside the context of documents. (Think of e.g. Web Workers.)

Noted.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:51:26 GMT

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