W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2010

Fwd: DOM 3 Events - Burgeoning with Features!

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:27:04 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikttGaX8GBwh-z9wLbupdcjKNTnm_vObWfmQhg9@mail.gmail.com>
To: DOM mailing list <www-dom@w3.org>
(to list)
On 10/2/10, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>   There's a thread on the public-canvas-api mailing list, speaking to the
> vast complexities of text entry; Oliver Hunt put forward some good examples
> of how complex text editing can be.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010JulSep/0042.html
>
> It seems reasonable, to me, that text editing and IMEs be looked into on
> its own
> specc and terms.
>
Sure!

But why stop with text input? It has recently come to my attention
that this issue was previously raised.
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2009JulSep/0034.html>
For those who don't want to click through, the message there proposes:

| The DOM-Events would preserve:
| 1) DOM Event architecture (flow, propagation, concepts
| of default actions etc.)
| 2) Event interface and extension model, that would allow
| defining other interfaces in other specs
| 3) DocumentEvent/EventTarget/EventListener interfaces
| 4) MutationEvent/MutationNameEvent interfaces and events
|
| The other specification would get the rest.

The issue and proposal I raised in this thread essentially echoes that message.

An extensible event synthesis mechanism might also be looked at an
"core" feature but that consideration can come later.

Garrett
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 07:27:36 GMT

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