RE: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

FWIW, I like the idea. The current indirection through an interface annotated with [Callback] has historically been hard for newbies to WebIDL to figure out. Anne's concept helps reduce the indirection.

Another syntax could be:

addEventListener(DOMString type, [Callback(Event)] EventListener? listener, optional boolean capture)

Which re-uses the "constructor" parameter syntax (in an extended attribute) that we already have in WebIDL.

From: ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:05 AM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks

I support this. While it's not the API I'd design from scratch, I think it's what we're stuck with and the simplicity provided by doing this throughout the platform is worth it.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com<mailto:annevk@opera.com>> wrote:
It seems that all callbacks use handleEvent() and we cannot change that at this point I think. We should simplify callback syntax to a) make IDL easier to read and b) ensure consistency throughout the platform.

addEventListener(DOMString type, Callback(Event)? listener, optional boolean capture)


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/