- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:36:17 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > 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. > > Interesting. How so? Do you have an example where inheriting from > EventTarget has become an issue or is going to be an issue? I personally > don't have a position on this, I'm just really interested because I had > this come up in other (proprietary) contexts. Why is EventTarget special? If one day we decide that many objects should all implement something else, e.g. a Clonable interface or something, what do we do? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:36:40 UTC