W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Feedback on TouchEvent and DocumentTouch

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:01:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4E943E2B.1070401@nokia.com>
To: ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webevents@w3.org
Hi Anne,

We captured your feedback in two separate comments - [LC-3] and [LC-4] - 
in our Disposition of Comments document.

Re LC-4, the DocumentTouch issue, as discussed on this thread, Matt 
submitted a changeset to address your comment and we noted you are OK 
with this solution.

Re LC-3, the initXXXEvent and constructor issue - Matt removed the 
initXXXEvent method from v1 and v2. For v1 we will not define any event 
constructor but we intend to do so for v2 (based on DOM4).

Please indicate if you are OK or not with our proposal for LC-3.

-Thanks, AB

[LC-3] 
http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-13-Sep-2011#LC-3
[LC-4] 
http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TouchEvents-LCWD-13-Sep-2011#LC-4


On 9/13/11 10:46 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Please do not standardize new initXXXEvent() methods. Instead use 
> event constructors like HTML, Progress Events, DOM4, etc. Example:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/#progressevent
>
> Using DOM4 you could also use the "fire an event" terminology to make 
> it clear which events are trusted and which are not.
>
>
> Instead of introducing a new interface called DocumentTouch please use 
> "partial interface Document" instead to extend the Document interface. 
> You need to add a reference here too for Document.
>
> Is it too late to replace these create* methods with actual 
> constructors by the way? Should we add constructors nevertheless?
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 13:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:54 UTC