- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 16:10:46 -0700
- To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Sergey Ilinsky <sergey@ilinsky.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/25/10, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:00:37 +0200, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> >> wrote: >>> There are many cases where leaving out that required 3rd argument >>> just fails miserably. >>> >>> Wish it weren't so. Afaik, it'll definitely break things. >> >> In the short term, sure. In the long term all browsers will support it. We >> should definitely make this change. >> > > In the short term, new tutorials may be written saying that it is > optional and authors will follow those guides, causing > interoperability problems for older browsers. > > That's the bad. The good is the long term scenario of having a > slightly cleaner API and resultant code (that doesn't need the extra > param). > > I'd like to see a little warning in the spec, something along the lines of: > > useCapture - > [description] > If omitted, the behavior is the same as if `false` had been supplied. > > Note that `useCapture` was required in previous versions of the > specification and omitting it will result in an error in older > implementations. Authors should therefore continue to supply a value > for `useCapture` until implementations support its omission. A warning to this effect seems reasonable to me. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 23:40:50 UTC