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

Re: Feedback on 07 September 2010 draft re DOMActivate

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:45:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4CE3CE87.5000809@mit.edu>
To: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
CC: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "w3c-voice-wg@w3.org" <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
On 11/17/10 4:34 AM, Dan Burnett 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".

There are two situations:

1)  DOMActivate is not fired or supported in HTML/SVG/MathML.  In
     that case, defining it in core web DOM seems a little odd.  In
     particular, it could lead to people thinking they can/should use
     it in HTML, but they actually can't.

2)  DOMActivate is fired in HTML/SVG/MathML.  In that case, the
     interaction of this event with "click" needs to be specified.
     This turns out to be fairly hairy, actually, especially if
     activation contexts can nest (which they can, in HTML).  The
     result is a much more complicated spec, a much more
     complicated event model for authors, and much more complicated
     and bug-prone implementations.

In both cases, there seem to be no particular upsides, only downsides, 
at least for existing web technologies....

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 12:46:34 GMT

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