- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:42:38 +0200
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Hi, There is a thread in the Geolocation WG about how to properly spec up firing events as soon as possible (in the context of the device orientation spec): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jul/thread.html#msg25 We should watch it, and most likely apply the conclusions to the Battery status events: "When an event listener is registered with the event type batterystatus, then the user agent must retrieve the relevant information and dispatch a BatteryStatusEvent event asynchronously" http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/battery-status.html#the-batterystatus---------event Dom -------- Message transféré -------- > De: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> > À: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Doug Turner > <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Steve Block <steveblock@google.com>, > public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org> > Sujet: Re: Spec update: deviceorientation event should fire when > listener is first registered > Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:17:20 +1000 > > On 12/07/2011, at 9:50 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:42:36 +0200, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > >>> I think firing when a new listener registers for the event is wrong. Tying that together goes against the event model. addEventListener() has no such side effects. > >> > >> What exactly is it wrong with it? And what alternative would you > >> suggest to solve the given problem? > > > > You could follow a similar design to http://www.whatwg.org/C#messageport that does have special handling for onmessage (or here ondeviceorientation), but not for addEventListener(). If you want to use addEventListener() you would have to invoke start(). > > > > The problem is that addEventListener() is supposed to be orthogonal to all this. We could change that, but I am not convinced it is a good idea. > > I tend to agree with Anne here. We shouldn't change the understood behaviour of addEventListener(). If you really need an event to be fired, then we should expose a mechanism specifically for that. > > Dean > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 13:42:57 UTC