- From: Klim Lee <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:56:10 -0700
- To: w3c/editing <editing@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/editing/issues/55/107998685@github.com>
> Indeed, it works just about everywhere and it works in contenteditable. Then I’m sure we should not discard it. If we decide we don’t want to use a global namespace for that, we just stick with string identifiers: e. g. `setInputMode("overtype")`. It’s not really that bad, it wouldn’t be the first API to use strings: DOM event IDs have been strings for decades, despite that the same DOM uses numeric constants elsewhere. Eventually, we may end up in need of a namespace for other parts of the spec, so it’s a difficult decision to make in such an isolated context; if there are other benefits of a global namespace, I’m personally more comfortable with constants. But even if not, nobody ever died of strings. It’s still more neutral and potentially extensible than specific methods, like `toggleOverwrite(boolean)` in CodeMirror. In case of strings, `setInputMode()` should probably do nothing for strings it can’t recognise, the same way `execCommand` does nothing for non-existing commands (I don’t think developers will need the ability to set and implement custom input modes like they do with custom events in `addEventListener`; I do think we may have to define additional modes in later versions of the spec, so by extensibility I understand the latter, and not the former). --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/55#issuecomment-107998685
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 15:56:38 UTC