- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:23:59 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > 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. I mean in general, on any interface. IMHO nothing should inherit from EventTarget. That some interfaces do in the specs today is a relatively new development and IMHO one that will complicate the platform in the future. > >> 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 addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0237.html -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:24:24 UTC