[whatwg] Device proximity and light events

[Doug Turner]

That is different -- Hixie can chime in.

I think the idea is that if you have and dom event handler, you should also have an onXXXX event handler attribute.  Its meaning is less defined.  I do not think it means that if ondevicemotion exists, that means you will always see device motion events.

Doug


On May 9, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Scott González wrote:

> There was a related discussion on the mailing list: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-November/029252.html
> 
> I also found a message from Hixie to me, related to that thread: "I agree entirely that if an event has a use case, it makes sense for it to have an event handler attribute."
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Doug Turner <dougt at mozilla.com> wrote:
> 
> On May 9, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Doug Turner <dougt at mozilla.com> wrote:
> >> Where was that discussion?
> >
> > This came up at the WebApps F2F and there was general agreement that
> > if we added new events adding new event handler attributes would make
> > sense.
> 
> Was there any notes taken?
> 
> 
> > Feature detection of some kind is useful as forcing people to
> > do UA sniffing leads to badness.
> 
> I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done.   I just don't think it as important as most people.  For example, even if the device is present, it may be off or not responding.  In that case, you'll have a feature that tests positive and never receive any events.
>