- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:01:04 -0700
- To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/7/14 5:33 PM, ext Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2014, at 8:37, Ian Hickson wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> On March 20, 2014 at 2:30:55 PM, Marcos Caceres (w3c@marcosc.com) wrote: >>>> On March 20, 2014 at 12:58:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>>> Agreed. The exact target isn't very important here, and so being >>>>> consistent with legacy event firing for the same system is probably >>>>> a good idea. >>>> Agree. Let's go with consistency, even though it feels a bit weird. >>> Ian, would it be possible to have some kind of hook in HTML to give us >>> this behaviour for free? >>> >>> That is, given an event handler IDL attribute on some interface, we get >>> the HTML attribute equivalent on body element (all wired up and ready to >>> be used). That would be useful in that we wouldn't need to define the >>> HTML onorientationchange attribute in the Orientation Lock spec (and all >>> future specs). This could really help with consistency. >> I'm very happy to add any such attributes to the HTML spec, just file a >> bug once you're confident that it won't change. > When we will be in LC and close to CR, I will file a bug to remove the > monkey patching I am doing on the HTML spec. Perhaps it would be good then to file a bug for the Screen Orientation spec and/or to add a related note to the ED. WDYT? -AB
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 14:02:37 UTC