W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Feedback on 07 September 2010 draft re DOMActivate

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:42:32 +0100
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Dan Burnett" <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Cc: "Michael Bodell" <mbodell@microsoft.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "w3c-voice-wg@w3.org" <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vma6k5y664w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:34:36 +0100, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, Jonas.  I notice that while your arguments speak  
> strongly in favor of having an event named "click" with the semantics of  
> "device independent abstract event with the meaning of activation", I do  
> not see a single argument against *permitting* the existing synonym  
> called "DOMActivate".
>
> Interestingly, you say "The goal here has been one of accessibility" and  
> go on to imply that we wish to "reeducate everyone".  If you'll notice,  
> our request was not to remove "click" nor to change anyone else's mind  
> about how to use it -- rather, our request was not to deprecate the use  
> of DOMActivate.  If you are interested in accessibility and broad  
> adoption, what have you to fear from supporting both names?

It is unneeded added complexity. When we can prevent that, we should.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 09:43:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:06 GMT