The draft currently includes an interesting pattern (thanks Yang for inadvertently reminding me of this) for declaration of Event classes. It goes like this: [Constructor(SomethingEventInit data)] interface SomethingEvent : Event { readonly attribute Something attr; } dictionary SomethingEventInit { Something attr; } After having actually implemented most of this stuff, most of the time it is sufficient (in JavaScript at least) to instantiate Event and tack the necessary attributes on. Even in a formal sense, the SomethingEventInit object has no need to be in the public namespace, let alone the specification. I can understand why the internals of your implementation might use these, but are really just browser internals. Applications don't need either definition. Why isn't the pattern like so? [NoInterfaceObject] interface SomethingEvent : Event { readonly attribute Something attr; } It would be a lot clearer that way. You also don't have to worry about putting the RTC prefix on these either, since the name is only a specification convenience.Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 00:31:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:34 UTC