Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson <> 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: 

I addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier:

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:24:24 UTC