- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:56:48 +0100
- To: "Kentaro Hara" <haraken@chromium.org>, "Arthur Barstow (art.barstow@nokia.com)" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Jacob Rossi" <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@chromium.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>, "Dominic Cooney" <dominicc@chromium.org>, "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:20:39 +0100, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote: > I'm hesitant to remove the init methods we've already shipped without > very compelling compat data (more than just on Google Code, but that's a > useful start). I'll see if I can check some of our sources for this to > understand the risk a bit better. Understood. Note that several have already been removed from specs and implementations (e.g. initCustomEvent). > In general, I'd lean towards leaving them in as they're not in technical > conflict event constructors. But if we have compelling data they're not > in use, then I'd consider it. They're not in conflict, but they're unnecessary cruft that is possible to get rid of. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 06:57:33 UTC