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: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:56:48 +0100
To: "Kentaro Hara" <haraken@chromium.org>, "Arthur Barstow (art.barstow@nokia.com)" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@chromium.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "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.v8vxkygqidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:20:39 +0100, Jacob Rossi  
<Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I'm hesitant to remove the init methods we've already shipped without  
> very compelling compat data (more than just on Google Code, but that's a  
> useful start). I'll see if I can check some of our sources for this to  
> understand the risk a bit better.

Understood. Note that several have already been removed from specs and  
implementations (e.g. initCustomEvent).

> In general, I'd lean towards leaving them in as they're not in technical  
> conflict event constructors. But if we have compelling data they're not  
> in use, then I'd consider it.

They're not in conflict, but they're unnecessary cruft that is possible to  
get rid of.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 06:57:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:09 GMT