W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] evt and event

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:51:45 +0200
To: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <86DC72E3-CA52-471B-9F23-72C470FEAD1E@berjon.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

On Sep 17, 2008, at 00:34 , Krzysztof Maczyński wrote:
>> An 'event' variable can be used instead of 'evt' ('event' is an  
>> alias to 'evt').
> Please define it more formally in terms of ECMAScript.
>> Other interpreted languages should behave in a similar manner.
> This sentence occurs earlier, so does it entail an expectation for  
> such aliasing? Note that it may not be a possibility in many  
> interpreted languages unless you specify something explicitly like  
> "function(evt, event)" and require the same object to be passed in  
> both arguments. We'd be left with "evt" only, whereas drafts  
> maintained by the Web Applications WG call for "event".


Actually, most languages that I think are here being put under the  
"interpreted" label could probably support what is being required  
here. What I don't understand is what this "interpreted language"  
provision is supposed to bring. The manner in which a given language  
may be processed and compiled has very little bearing on its feature- 
set (the one exception being eval() functionality, and even then  
that's just a common difference, not a necessary one).

What bindings should do should be up to their respective definitions,  
so I'd suggest just dropping that last sentence.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 08:52:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:40 GMT