- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:28:27 +0200
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, "Anssi Kostiainen" <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:20:55 +0200, Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com> wrote: > On 31.8.2011, at 14.31, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Modifying how addEventListener() works violates DOM Core. Not really >> acceptable. > > Do you have an alternative design in mind that would address the above > use case in a DOM Core conformant manner? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jul/0023.html has an alternative. >> I think initBatteryStatusEvent() should be dropped. New specifications >> should use the DOM Core event constructor mechanism and not further >> proliferate init*Event() methods. > > The new constructor is really great, but I think supporting both the old > and the new model simultaneously would be a relatively small investment > considering you'd get better compatibility with legacy content, e.g. in > JavaScript convenience libraries. Or WDYT? There is legacy content for initBatteryStatusEvent()? Given that this specification thus far does not have wide adoption in browsers I think it can still be safely dropped. You can use http://www.w3.org/TR/progress-events/ as an example. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 15:29:08 UTC