- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:40:41 +0200
- To: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 11/08/2011 10:23 PM, David Flanagan wrote: > On 11/8/11 6:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren 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) >> >> > How about Callback means [Callback=FunctionOnly]. I.e.: you have to pass > a function. New interfaces could use this. We're trying to get rid of =FunctionOnly since there really isn't any reason for that, and passing { the_name_of_the_callback: function() {}} is actually useful in some cases. > > And EventCallback means [Callback] EventListener. I.e. you can pass a > function or any object with a handleEvent() method. Legacy APIs (and new > Event apis) can use that. > > Some other thoughts: > > - If these are going to be parameterized with the argument type, it > seems like the WebIDL precedent is angle brackets as in > sequence<DOMString>. > > - If parameterized, will multiple arguments be supported? What about > return values? Seems to me that that requires a lot of new specification > in WebIDL and new functionality to add to IDL parsing tools, etc. > > - If these are going to be types defined by WebIDL itself, precedent is > that they should start with a lowercase letter or be prefixed with DOM. > (Hmm. "callback" could be the function only version and "DOMCallback" > could be the legacy version that supports handleEvent() methods...) > > David > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 20:41:10 UTC