- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 13:34:48 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Does anyone know what the W3C traditions are with regard to event constructors? I believe events are generally generated by the platform (which does what the platform does, and is not dependent on a Javascript-visible constructor) and by test scripts that want to inject events for testing event handling. If that's correct, it should be OK to let it be "tester beware" - the platform can throw an "illegal argument error" when it doesn't have the information needed to construct the event, or fill in default values if that's its desire; it's only going to be done in tests anyway. No need to convolute the WebIDL. But as I said - anyone who knows what the tradition actually is should chime in. On 08/15/2014 05:17 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > On 8/14/14 2:35 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote: >> [Constructor(DOMString type, optional ImageCaptureErrorEventInit >> imageCaptureErrorInitDict)] >> interface ImageCaptureErrorEvent : Event { >> readonly attribute ImageCaptureError imageCaptureError; >> }; >> >> How could imageCaptureError be non-null if imageCaptureErrorInitDict is >> optional? > > I assume you mean non-nullABLE. Is your point that it needs to be: > > readonly attribute ImageCaptureError? imageCaptureError; > > or there's a question what the value is when constructed without > ImageCaptureErrorEventInit? > > We're inconsistent at least. I had the opposite question [1] a while > back on MediaStreamEvent where the attribute IS nullable, but I came > around when I found the alternatives more complicated. > > So +1 on making it nullable. > > .: Jan-Ivar :. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2014Jul/0015.html > >
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 11:35:19 UTC