- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:50:34 +0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On 9/23/09 4:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> >> >>> this is a directly related to DOM3 Events key identifiers, and it >>> needs to be implemented in that context. Mozilla and Microsoft have >>> already agreed that we need this, BTW. >> >> Well, I disagree. I do not see the point in having this method as I do >> not see the need for having multiple representations for everything in >> the first place in the context of DOM Level 3 Events. >> >> Furthermore I think putting createEvent on Document was a mistake in >> to begin with. Especially with the design we have now where DOM events >> are often used outside the context of documents. (Think of e.g. Web >> Workers.) > > I agree with Anne. I think we should remove the U+XXXX format entirely. > If you have a string like Q, you can convert it to a unicode numeric > value for range checking like this: > > var codePoint = evt.keyIdentifier.charCodeAt(0); If I haven't mistaken, charCodeAt(0) isn't quite enough. It returns values between 0-65536. One needs to check also charCodeAt(1). A helper method to get the codepoint easily in all cases could be useful. -Olli > > This seems easier than this as a way to get a numeric unicode code point: > parseInt(document.convertKeyIdentifier(evt.keyIdentifier).substring(2)) > > Also, you can range check the actual string, so it's rare to need the > code point at all: > if (evt.keyIdentifier >= "A" && evt.keyIdentifier <= "Z") > > I don't think the U+XXXX string format does not add any value. > > Regards, > Maciej > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 16:51:31 UTC