- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:51:45 +0200
- To: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.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 UTC