- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:14:49 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to >> create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future. > > I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting to make objects > inherit from EventTarget. :-) I think adding EventTarget to the chain is a simplification as it makes that interface more consistent with the majority of other ones. >> It's a judgement call. I think we're just making different judgements on >> how likely it is that we'll need to extend this in the future. > > So far I haven't seen any suggestions that would need a change to the > constructor. We shouldn't try to solve problems we can't even imagine > yet; how could we possibly evaluate our solutions? Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any of the types listed in the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html I'm also still interested in hearing feedback from other implementers. So far only two have spoken up and have both been in favor of making the argument an object. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:15:57 UTC