- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:04:45 +0100
- To: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:12:23 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Anyway, here's a suggestion: > > callback EventListener = void handleEvent(Event evt); > > interface EventTarget { > void addEventListener(DOMString type, EventListener listener, > bool useCapture); > }; > > That handles the (by far common case) of [Callback,NoInterfaceObject] > being used on an interface with a single operation. It's an improvement > over using "interface" IMO. Agreed, looks pretty awesome to me! > Also if someone knows of any interfaces that use a [Callback] with > attributes on it, please let me know. It would simplify matters to drop > support for that too. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#interface-nodefilter has them (sad face), but I am not really sure how that ends up being exposed. > For event listener attributes where they are required to be restricted > only to Function objects (that is the case, yes?) we could write > > callback EventListener = void handleEvent(Event evt); > [FunctionOnly] attribute EventListener onclick; > > or > > callback EventListener = void handleEvent(Event evt); > typedef [FunctionOnly] EventListener EventListenerAttribute; > attribute EventListenerAttribute onclick; > > to reduce a bit of repetition. I think we should introduce a native IDL type "eventhandler" so you can write eventhandler onclick; Event handlers are extremely common and worthy of such blessing, in my opinion. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 10:05:44 UTC