- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:33:44 +0200
- To: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
During the last teleconference (2006-04-03) it became clear that not everyone had the same view regarding DOM3EV. It would be good to resolve that. "Here follows how I see it." The events specification defines a set of interfaces to be implemented and supported by UAs. These are Event, EventTarget, EventListener, EventException, EventExceptionCode, DocumentEvent and CustomEvent. UAs also need to support the event flow and all that. It furthermore defines a set of events to be reused by other specifications. It defines the interfaces for those events, as well as some indiciation of their semantics and how they work, et cetera. For UAs to be conforming with DOM3EV they won't have to implement these events. Specifications trying to conform with DOM3EV have to define when these events are dispatched and how they interact with the language. For example, on which elements 'submit' can be dispatched. For some events, like 'submit', 'reset', 'load', et cetera this makes some sense. We don't want to define when 'load' is dispatched... For example, that would require us to define that `var x = new Image(); x.src ="foo"` starts loading directly while loading of a style sheet or script starts after the respective element has been appended to the document. For other events, like 'mousemove', 'mouseover' etc. it might make less sense given that these work more or less the same in every language (when presented in a visual canvas). I still think that for these events we don't want them to be required in DOM Level 3 Events for UAs. For some UAs mouse events might make no sense at all. I think that's best left up to the languages in question, like http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/svgdom.html#RelationShipWithDOM2Events does. What we should make sure of is that the conformance on specifications section clearly states what is allowed and what is not so that we don't end up with 'mousemove' being incompatible in two different languages. At the same time, we should ensure that specifications are not going for a slightly different name just because they don't like that the event doesn't bubble or whatever. We don't want to end up with four different couples of focus events for example. Oh, wait... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 13:33:57 UTC