- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:43:18 -0500
- To: ext Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- CC: public-webevents@w3.org
On 3/6/13 12:04 PM, ext Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > That's a blast from the past > http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/views.html#Views-AbstractView. > It should be WindowProxy, yes. AbstractView has been the type of the view parameter since the [FPWD]. Perhaps one of the reasons to use that type was to not create a dependency on HTML5? Doug or Matt - would you please clarify. If the type is changed to [WindowProxy], it would create a new dependency on HTML5 and that can lead to an issue when moving the spec to Recommendation, unless we have data/evidence WindowProxy's definition is stable and interoperably deployed. Do we have such data? Boris - are there any other issues with the IDL in the [LC] spec? -AB [FPWD] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-touch-events-20110505/> [WindowProxy] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/browsers.html#windowproxy> [LC] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-touch-events-20130124/> > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu > <mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu>> wrote: > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html#extensions-to-the-document-interface > has: > > Touch createTouch (AbstractView view, EventTarget target, > long identifier, long pageX, long pageY, long screenX, long screenY); > > But there is no AbstractView defined in WebIDL anywhere, so this > IDL is not valid and a WebIDL parser will reject it. > > That first argument should probably just be a WindowProxy if > that's what's really meant. > > -Boris > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 17:43:52 UTC