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

Re: SVGT 1.2: "evt" vs "event" as the implicit event argument to event handlers

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:41:39 +0200
Message-ID: <1413529120.20060424214139@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg@w3c.org

On Monday, April 24, 2006, 9:05:04 PM, Robin wrote:

RB> On Apr 24, 2006, at 20:28, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> This is why adding 'event' to SVG is suggested, to help with HTML 
>> +SVG CDI
>> cases; but deprecating the otherwise undocumented 'event' over time  
>> and
>> keeping the standardized 'evt'.

RB> For the sake of consensus and closing this comment,

I'm all for both concepts - consensus and closure. However, the claim that the name defined in the DOM specs is not defined/irrelevant/not the same thing needs to be examined, surely.

 
RB>  can't we agree to  
RB> have both (since there are arguments for either) and look into  
RB> deprecation when some more water has flown under the bridge?

That would work too. But if the name is not defined, are we not going to get more requests over time?



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 19:41:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT