- From: Kentaro Hara <haraken@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:17:26 +0900
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, "Arthur Barstow (art.barstow@nokia.com)" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, 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>
> 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