W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: "DOM4 Events" Proposal (was: Spec proposals for Event constructors)

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:54:59 +0100
To: "Kentaro Hara" <haraken@chromium.org>
Cc: "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@chromium.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>, "Dominic Cooney" <dominicc@chromium.org>, "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.v8qi1xppidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:18:04 +0100, Kentaro Hara <haraken@chromium.org>  

>> One of the ideas with event constructors was not only to introduce the
>> constructor, but also to get rid of init*Event() methods where  
>> possible. So
>> ideally, e.g. the WheelEvent interface would not have the legacy method,
>> since it's (I assume) not needed for compat with existing content.
> Yes, we should remove init*Event() from the spec IDL. We can just note
> "Note: As events have constructors, initEvent() is superfluous.
> However, it has to be supported for legacy content.", just like the
> spec of Event (http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#interface-event).

Those two options are mutually exclusive. Either initFooEvent() is not  
needed for compat, and should be removed completely (like e.g.  
initProgressEvent() http://www.w3.org/TR/progress-events/#progressevent ),  
or it is needed for compat, and should be kept, like initEvent() in DOM4.

A guess is that initUIEvent and initMouseEvent are needed for compat, and  
the rest aren't.

> Jacob: Would you please update the "..." parts in the IDL in the spec
> draft? I think we can copy IDL attributes from the DOM3 event specs.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 08:55:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:18 UTC