W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2006

RE: [SVGMobile12] event aliasing

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:21:08 -0700
Message-ID: <6ECA24BE410D994496A2AE995367C5C8917DD2@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

I was thinking of an approach similar to what you said in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Apr/0010.html, and I believe Anne is thinking similarly, but the frustrating part of your emails on this thread is that you don't talk about the whole problem set ever but instead make judgements and proposals on pieces. For example, in your email, you only talk about load/SVGLoad, but do not address DOMFocusIn, DOMFocusOut, DOMActivate, SVGResize or SVGScroll, and thus according to my arithmetic, you only address 1/7 of the problem set.

In terms of your comment about SMIL events where you propose that:

   begin='id.activate' won't begin unless an Event object with Event.type == 'activate' is dispatched to the element

I disagree with your proposal because of backwards-compatibility concerns. The SVG 1.0/1.1 specs (and thus SVG Tiny 1.1 by reference) state in the table at (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/interact.html#SVGEvents) that begin="id.activate" (and the 'onactivate' event attribute) is mapped to the DOMActivate event from DOM2 Events. These various decisions about event names and SVG's syntax relative to these events went to recommendation in the years 2000 (for DOM2 Events) and 2001 (for SVG 1.0) and we just have to live with them.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:29 AM
To: Jon Ferraiolo
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [SVGMobile12] event aliasing

* Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>The double-dispatching approach that Anne suggests matches what I had in
>mind for event aliasing on the dispatching side. As far as I can see,
>the only thing that is different versus "event aliasing" is that
>script-generated events via createEvent() would not be equivalenced, but
>it is questionable whether one would even want such equivalencing.

You seem to have a creative interpretation of "event aliasing" ...

>Anne's approach also formally deprecates older events such as SVGLoad,
>which I think is also a good idea. So, I would love it if there could be
>a consensus around Anne's suggestion.

If http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Apr/0010.html
isn't different from what Anne proposes, then I'd agree with that.

>* We would drop SVG-t 1.2's newly invented 'focusin', 'focusout',
>'activate' and 'zoom' and instead stick with DOMFocusIn, DOMFocusOut,
>DOMActivate and SVGZoom (which provides backwards-compatible with both
>DOM2 Events [for all but zoom] and SVG 1.1).

If this implies that an element with begin='id.activate' won't begin
unless an Event object with Event.type == 'activate' is dispatched to
the element (which implementations are not required to), then that's
fine with me. Some people might consider this an incompatibility with
SVG 1.1, though I'm not aware of current implementations where this
would be an actual problem.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 18:21:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:07 UTC