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 22:55:58 +0200
Message-ID: <17466169.20060424225558@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, www-svg@w3c.org

On Monday, April 24, 2006, 10:24:06 PM, Maciej wrote:

MS> On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:


>> 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.

MS> Let me try to explain what I mean by this claim.

MS> I think there may be some confusion about what IDL here means. In
MS> the C programming language, the following two function signatures
MS> are identical in all respects:

MS> int myFancyStandardFunction(int event);
MS> int myFancyStandardFunction(int evt);

Thanks for taking the time to explain. In languages I am familiar with
(Pascal/Modula-2/Oberon/Modula-3) those would be different function
definitions. An implementation of one would not be an implementation of
the other. The implementation in the implementation module would need to
refer to the formal parameter by name.

Procedure myFancyStandardFunction(evt: integer): integer;

Of course, the actual parameters (variables or constants) that are
passed to calls to the function/procedure could be called anything at
all as long as they had the required type

q := myFancyStandardFunction(a);
q := myFancyStandardFunction(x);
q := myFancyStandardFunction(b[3]);
q := myFancyStandardFunction(c^.foo[b]);

And in other languages, such as Ada iirc, the parameter order is
irrelevant and can be changed in the procedure call provided the name of
the formal parameter is given.

MS> It could be taken as a suggestion,  
MS> but has no normative value in this regard. DOM Events does not define  
MS> anything about converting strings to functions or what if anything  
MS> you should add as an implicit parameter name.

So, you are saying that language bindings cannot be automatically
derived from the IL, and that multiple, equally correct, but mutually
non-interoperable (in some languages) bindings can be made from the same
IDL?

MS> Regards,
MS> Maciej




-- 
 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 20:56:04 GMT

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