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
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 09:43:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:16 UTC