W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webtiming@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [timingobject] Is timeupdate event necessary?

From: Ingar Arntzen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:30:53 +0000
To: public-webtiming@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-133908082-1440358252-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Njål Borch replied in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webtiming/2015Aug/0025.html

"In regards to 2), why would time update be chained?  I presume the 
code in 1) or equivalent could easily be included into the timing 
object itself, so nodes generate timeupdate events on subscriptions.  
They are not inherited, hence there is no need for a transformation.  
The timeupdate event is very convenient, if only to limit the amount 
of cut'n'paste code that people get wrong."

Hm. Maybe it doesn't after all. In my mind the timeupdate event 
included a state vector - which would then have to be transformed in a
 chain. However, if we simply say that there is no vector included - 
then the problem evaporates :)

If we were to include this logic into the timing object, it would be 
nice to support custom frequency by parameter.
.on("timeupdate", handler, 100)
I suppose this would be inconsistent with the classical 
addEventListener signature? Is there any way around this?

-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by ingararntzen
See 
https://github.com/webtiming/timingobject/issues/15#issuecomment-133908082
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2015 19:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:25:14 UTC