- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:04:29 -0700
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: doug.schepers@vectoreal.com, www-svg@w3c.org
On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Friday, April 21, 2006, 11:37:17 PM, Maciej wrote: > > MS> A) I agree that changing what "event" or "evt" means for XHTML or > MS> HTML event handler attributes is out of scope for SVG. > > When you say "changing", which is the published specification that > would > change? I ask because as far as we can tell there isn't one. But > yes if > this were to change W3C-wide it would be WebAPI that would likely own > that spec. Right now it is unspecified but there is a common de facto practice. If someone were to standardize how HTML event listener attributes work, ideally it would be a group working on an HTML standard. Web API > MS> B) However, in the case of SVG, adding "event" as a second > supported > MS> name for the implicit event parameter (or replacing "evt") would > MS> clearly be in scope for the SVG WG, and clearly out of scope > for Web > MS> API and CDF. To make this change in a separate spec would require > MS> directly contradicting the SVG 1.2 Tiny spec as written. > Therefore I > MS> strongly disagree if you think some other working group should > change > MS> what SVG means. > > I agree and when this was discussed in the group, adding 'event' to > SVG > alongside 'evt' was clearly something SVG would do to help with > harmonization. OK, if the SVG WG is planning to do this then please change the disposition of my comment to "agree". What other working groups may or may not do in the future is not relevant for purposes of an SVG Tiny 1.2 review comment. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 20:04:53 UTC