- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:58:24 +0000
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > I think this proposal needs more consideration. It's a simple, consistent > overload of an existing API, instead of a new API. I've been told that it's > "confusing", but not how or why. It seems simple and obvious to me, so I > don't know how to address this. It seems much simpler than having two > distinct event listener APIs. It doesn't give a nice two-letter function > name, but that's not a reason to have two APIs (at most it simply means > making an alias). Overloading an existing API to make it work completely different simply does not seem like a good strategy. We should just map it to the same underlying concepts. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 13:58:55 UTC