- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:57:35 +0200
- To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:08:23 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 8/28/10 1:55 PM): >> What is the advantage? As .detail means nothing and .view is useless. > > The advantage I see is a more logical and consistent framework on which > to build future events, and easier for developers to learn. In several > of the event interfaces, there are properties that only have meaningful > values for a subset of the events on that interface, but which are still > grouped logically, so this has precedent. > > From a developer and script library perspective, there may be reasons > to treat UIEvents differently, and this makes it easy to detect that > category of events (rather than reply upon a hardcoded list of event > types). This all sounds rather vague. I would rather have us not change the interface unless a clear need is identified. >> Just seems like additional complexity for no reason. > > Isn't any additional complexity is negligible in terms of implementation > and performance? Changes are not negligible. >> It works differently for the Document object, yes. (I don't have >> anything I can share in test form at this point.) > > Okay, thanks for the heads-up; I didn't realize this before, and it's > probably the reason 'scroll' was listed as bubbling before. I've noted > this in the spec, in the event type definition and the event table: > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html#event-type-scroll If this is supposed to be some kind of normative description, shouldn't that be normative too? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 07:58:10 UTC