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

Re: convertKeyIdentifier (was: "keyIdentifier" Sucks)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:39:55 -0700
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-id: <2CC6B7BF-0207-49F4-B7F3-AB71848E1347@apple.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

On Sep 22, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Anne-
>
> Please change the subject line if you change the subject...
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 9/22/09 10:51 AM):
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:48:19 +0200, Travis Leithead
>> <travil@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> [*]Unicode (to provide easy access to the Unicode string?)
>>>
>>> Scratch that last one--just noticed
>>> DocumentEvent::convertKeyIdentifier...
>>
>> Should we really have such a method on document though? And what is  
>> the
>> reason for using U+.... in the first place. Can't we just always  
>> return
>> the Unicode scalar value?
>
> The Unicode scalar value is the "U+xxxx" format (the code point).   
> You might have meant the character value.  We have already decided  
> that the character value (if it exists) will be the attribute value.
>
> There are potential use cases for getting each of the different  
> formats (for example, for Unicode code points, making sure that a  
> character is in a certain range, or presenting an advanced virtual  
> keyboard, or signaling non-printing diacritics).

If you get a string of the character, you can very easily get the  
unicode value of the character as a number in almost any reasonable  
programming language. It's actually harder to parse out of the U+xxxx  
format. The conversion is only useful if there are keys with a U+xxxx  
equivalent where the name is not just that very unicode character.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 01:40:36 GMT

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