- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:31:58 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Hi, Anne- Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/22/11 11:42 AM): > On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:25:45 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> If we indeed introduce objects into our APIs and I start to think that >> would make sense I think the simplest approach that could possibly >> work here is to overload initEvent(). In addition to its three >> argument version it would get a version that accepts just one >> argument, an object. From this object property values are queried to >> set values on the event. E.g. >> >> var e = document.createEvent("CustomEvent") >> e.initEvent({"type":"custom", "details":{"hello":"world"}}) >> document.dispatchEvent(e) > > https://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/dom-core/changeset/b9bb17789db9 is the > specification text for this. I suspect it will propagate to the editors' > drafts soon. > > Instead of overloading initEvent() I went with a new method init() based > on a suggestion from Olli. > > > So for each new event interface we define (and hopefully some of the > recently-added ones too) the init*Event() is not to be included and > instead a dictionary that inherits from InitEvent is to be included, as > well as how that dictionary maps to the event, as illustrated in DOM Core. I support this. I wanted to make event initialization easier in DOM3 Events, along the same lines, but got resistance on it. If everyone agrees to this approach, I think it's a win. I'll send more technical feedback when this is reflected in the spec. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Staff Contact, SVG, WebApps, Web Events, and Audio WGs
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 16:32:06 UTC