On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:19:16 +0900, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:25:42 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The usecase makes sense to me. But I wonder if it should be defined in
DOM 3 events instead?
DOM Events should define a way for other specifications to introduce
their own event interfaces in a convenient way. The other specifications
can then use that to easily describe FooEvent, FooEvent.init..., and
"FooEvent" (for constructing). It would be quite a burden if DOM Events
would actually needed to be updated each time we introduce a new event
interface.
Indeed. Although that drives us to the question of how to make sure that
events are not conflicting, when different specs can be written, I figure
all that is an issue for DOM 3 events.
In part the question arises for progress events in particular because it
is actually being defined by the same WG that is defining DOM 3 events, so
it could reasonably expect to work with the developers for that spec in a
way that is not available to most people who might try to create some kind
of eventType...
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
