W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: XML Events

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:11:11 -0000
Message-ID: <021401c2cdf1$fbe5d0b0$89909bd9@Moomin>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>

"Sigurd Lerstad" <sigler@bredband.no>
>><script xlink:href="script.js"/>
>>
>>as the sole way of attaching events, and the associated script, with
>>xml-events I don't have that option, and content is less seperated.
>
>Okay, you have a point. But:
>
>The way I see it: Scripting is composed of two things. The actual code that
>does the real work, and the listeners that connect elements to the code
>through events.

but if that means that the listeners are the simple "return callfunction()"
of your original example, then you get a huge amount of verbosity for little
gain, and verbosity has repeatedly lost out, authors don't appear to like
it.

> And lets also say that the user wants to change an
>event 'mousedown' to 'click', he'll need to go into the JavaScript and
>change, instead of having a lot more appealing/understandable
user-interface
>to do it in.

I think the idea that some user which doesn't understand javascript is going
to be making those changes in an authoring tool different to the one that
created it is all a bit pie in the sky, and the marginal benefit of an
easier to read syntax doesn't help much, given that the implementation is
more complicated.  (what happens if the DOM changes mid event bubble etc,
does a mutation event on the DOM fire if the mutation event is removed etc.)
XML-events to be seem messy, I don't follow them closely though as I think
it's a non-problem, and if XHTML 2.0 has a use case that's good, it doesn't
mean it's right elsewhere. (XHTML 2.0 is another technology in search of a
problem AFAICT)

> And it would only lead to confusion if different xml applications use
> different event systems.

XHTML 2.0 hasn't plumped for a linking mechanism that's the same as other
"xml applications", so I hardly think following XHTML 2.0 on the grounds of
interopability is a good thing.

Jim.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 10:14:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:24 GMT