RE: "keyIdentifier" Sucks

> From: Travis Leithead
> > From: www-dom-request@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf
> > Of Doug Schepers
> >
> > Sean Hogan wrote (on 9/22/09 12:13 AM):
> > >
> > > Doug Schepers wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Here are some counter-proposals, in roughly descending order of my
> > >> preference:
> > >> 1) keyname (I'd need to come up with some other term for what I'm
> > >> calling a "key name" in the spec, but that's fine)
> > >> 2) keystring
> > >> 3) keyvalue
> > >> 4) keyaddress
> > >> 5) keyid (I don't like this one for a number of reasons)
> > >> 6) keypeek (joke)
> > >>
> > > The XBL spec uses "key" for event filtering. Seems okay to me.
> >
> > Too general.  When you're describing the feature, you need a more
> > specific hook.  Just saying "key" doesn't distinguish it from a
> > physical key, keyCode/charCode, a VK, or even a scancode.
> 
> A few more choices to consider...
> 
> keyresult
> keychar
> keyinput
> keytext
> charvalue
> [*]Unicode (to provide easy access to the Unicode string?)

Scratch that last one--just noticed DocumentEvent::convertKeyIdentifier...

-Travis

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 14:49:01 UTC