- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:52:24 +0100
- To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Michael Champion" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 06:10:47 +0100, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/1/11, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: >> These are the reasons they are intertwined: >> >> * document.createEvent() > That was previously DocumentEvent interface, IIRC. Implementations put it on Document instead. And of course we could then still define it in a separate document (we are planning to introduce "extends" or some such for that), but it is more convenient to not do so. >> * mutation events > Why can't those be defined independently in Events. (not a fan of > mutation events, BTW). Nobody is a fan. They are dispatched directly as the result of method invocation and in some cases can even effect what exception the method needs to throw (as I understand it). So they are highly intertwined and defining them separately is not a good idea. >> * we want Node to inherit from EventTarget > That can be stated in DOM Core. For example: The Node Interface > implements EventTarget [Events Core]. Implements is different from inheritance. Again though, yes that would not require Events to be in the same document, it is just more convenient. >> * both events and documents depend on the same tree concept > How do XHR events or progress events depend on tree concept? Indexed DB does. Not everything does, of course. >> * INVALID_STATE_ERR is shared > > XHR and Event instances can have invalid states, but should those > exceptions to have the same name and numerical representation? That is the convention we have used thus far, yes (not just for XMLHttpRequest). I doubt we will change that at this point. > [...] > > I noticed that the DOM Core spec uses "throw" instead of "raise". I > don't mind the change but it might be something that matters for IDL > formalism. This will probably converge over time. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 12:53:07 UTC