Re: CDR: Event-related markup

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:16:14 
-0800

> On Jan 29, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> >> "In order to claim conformance to this Compound Documents 
> >> Framework, a compound document profile must define how all of its 
> >> event-related language constructs and scripting constructs map to 
> >> corresponding DOM3 event facilities, unless DOM3 events has 
> >> already defined the mapping."
> >>
> >> - SVG Tiny 1.2 does not fully define this relationship; neither 
> >> does XML events. I request that the CDF working group coordinate 
> >> on this issue with other relevant working groups.
> >
> > The working group agrees. Would you be kind enough to list the gaps 
> > you see in the current definitions for XML events with respect to 
> > DOM 3, to ensure that we catch them all?
> 
> XML Events does not define anything in terms of equivalent DOM 
> interfaces and method calls. Is adding a <listener> element 
> equivalent to some DOM EventTarget interface? How about removing it? 
> What about adding/removing elements that directly have XML events 
> attributes on them? This may be difficult since XML Events does not 
> specify the form of handler elements, but surely it could specify in 
> some vague way that handler events create an instance of the 
> EventListener interface and then specify the semantics of how these 
> are attached to or removed from the node.
> 

Regarding your LC comment [1], we no longer have a reference to XML Events 
in the CDF specifications and therefore this mapping issue no longer 
exists.  Also SVGTiny 1.2 defines it's relationship to DOM Level 3 Events 
[2].

Let us know within two weeks if this does not address your issue.

Regards,
Steve Speicher on behalf of the CDF WG

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0013.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/interact.html#SVGEvents

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 23:50:40 UTC