Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> 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:

This doesn't contain any arguments for why we wouldn't add any of the
suggested properties in the future. It just gives solutions for what
to do if we do need to add them. However all the suggested solutions
create a more complex platform than if we simply make the second
argument an object now.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:38:40 UTC