Re: addEventListener naming

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Doug Schepers <> wrote:
>>> 4. More methods for the developer community to learn. While learning
>>> both isn't needed to write code, it is needed to read other peoples
>>> code. Ability to read and understand other peoples code is a major
>>> strength of the web platform.
>> Agreed, but we already have a proliferation of new shorthand method names
>> through script libs... might it not be better to have some standard shorter
>> names that are better documented?
> True. If lots of libraries are supplying short-hand names, then it's
> an indication that there's a real problem that needs to be solved. Do
> a lot of libraries add shorthands for addEventListener?

None that I know.

What the popular libraries do is provide a mechanism that works in IE
and DOM browsers, essentially, but generally have a lot of problems
with that.

A good reason for designing a new Event interface would be to get
Microsoft involved in the process.

And the flip side is that if Microsoft won't get behind it, it will be
just as limited.

A new interface proposal should identifies and address actual problems
and should be usable in a way that:
  1) the feature is detectable
  2) a fallback strategy can be used


Received on Sunday, 13 September 2009 02:22:12 UTC