- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:34:07 +0200
- To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:10:27 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > Please change the subject line if you change the subject... I thought both items were in scope for the subject. Sorry. > Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 9/22/09 10:51 AM): >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:48:19 +0200, Travis Leithead >> <travil@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>> [*]Unicode (to provide easy access to the Unicode string?) >>> >>> Scratch that last one--just noticed >>> DocumentEvent::convertKeyIdentifier... >> >> Should we really have such a method on document though? And what is the >> reason for using U+.... in the first place. Can't we just always return >> the Unicode scalar value? > > The Unicode scalar value is the "U+xxxx" format (the code point). No it is not: http://unicode.org/glossary/#unicode_scalar_value (You also seem to misunderstand code point if you think it is about its common string representation.) > You might have meant the character value. We have already decided that > the character value (if it exists) will be the attribute value. So we will not have strings in the form of "U+xxxx" anymore? > There are potential use cases for getting each of the different formats > (for example, for Unicode code points, making sure that a character is > in a certain range, or presenting an advanced virtual keyboard, or > signaling non-printing diacritics). That functionality seems to apply to charcter handling everywhere and is not at all specific to event handling so I think it would be inappropriate for the events specification. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 15:34:48 UTC