- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:06:32 +0100
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- CC: public-indie-ui <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
On 2012-11-05 16:43, James Craig wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > >> On 2012-11-05 15:31, James Craig wrote: >>> Unless I hear objections, I am going to remove the IDL descriptions >>> altogether b/c I’m not sure they add much value. >> >> If you do this, will you then define that the events defined here implement the UIEvent interface? > > Besides the implementation details, why does is matter? I am only asking because it's relevant to the implementation details. For example, the UIScrollRequestEvent contains extra attributes that are not present in UIEvent, and so if scrollrequest was to implement UIEvent directly, then there would be questions about how the event conveys details about the request. Otherwise, if you intend to retain those extra attributes, then you should also retain the relevant IDL. > I could take a hybrid approach and list them as real words in the > spec for the sake of TTS pronunciations, but also list the event key > as a lowercased compound word. > > For example: > Undo Request (undorequest) That looks like an editorial issue, so I have no strong opinion either way. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 16:06:56 UTC