Re: "DOM4 Events" Proposal (was: Spec proposals for Event constructors)

> It sounds like there's interest from several members to bring this into webapps.
> Art, is there an appropriate place that I can publish this on w3.org so that I can start using CVS? And what are the next steps to get this added as a deliverable for the WG (we discussed this briefly at TPAC)?

Art: Would you comment on this?


On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 1:18 AM
>> To: Kentaro Hara
>> Cc: Alex Russell; Ian Hickson; Jacob Rossi; Anne van Kesteren; www-
>> dom@w3.org; schepers@w3.org; Dominic Cooney; Adrian Bateman
>> Subject: Re: "DOM4 Events" Proposal (was: Spec proposals for Event
>> constructors)
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:54:59 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:18:04 +0100, Kentaro Hara
>> > <haraken@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> One of the ideas with event constructors was not only to introduce
>> >>> the constructor, but also to get rid of init*Event() methods where
>> >>> possible. So ideally, e.g. the WheelEvent interface would not have
>> >>> the legacy method, since it's (I assume) not needed for compat with
>> >>> existing content.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, we should remove init*Event() from the spec IDL. We can just
>> >> note
>> >> "Note: As events have constructors, initEvent() is superfluous.
>> >> However, it has to be supported for legacy content.", just like the
>> >> spec of Event (http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#interface-event).
>> >
>> > Those two options are mutually exclusive. Either initFooEvent() is not
>> > needed for compat, and should be removed completely (like e.g.
>> > initProgressEvent()
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/progress-events/#progressevent
>> > ), or it is needed for compat, and should be kept, like initEvent() in
>> > DOM4.
>> >
>> > A guess is that initUIEvent and initMouseEvent are needed for compat,
>> > and the rest aren't.
>>
>> http://koders.com/ (with language set to JavaScript)
>>
>> inituievent            352
>> initmouseevent       3,405
>> initkeyboardevent        7
>> initwheelevent           0
>> inittextevent            0
>> initcompositionevent     0
>> initfocusevent           0
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> >
>> >> Jacob: Would you please update the "..." parts in the IDL in the spec
>> >> draft? I think we can copy IDL attributes from the DOM3 event specs.
>
> Sure I can do that.
>
> It sounds like there's interest from several members to bring this into webapps.
> Art, is there an appropriate place that I can publish this on w3.org so that I can start using CVS? And what are the next steps to get this added as a deliverable for the WG (we discussed this briefly at TPAC)?



-- 
Kentaro Hara, Tokyo, Japan (http://haraken.info)

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 00:18:44 UTC