- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:19:59 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Tom Wright <developer@tomwright.me.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Tom Wright wrote: >I don't think we should be promoting onactivate. It is part of the IE >Dom and poorly supported besides which onclick is device independent in >most browsers now (Bug 490 - 16.3 of HTML Techniques). It is also part of SVG [1] and an Activate event is defined in DOM 2 Events [2] as a UI event (which is therefore inherited by languages such as SMIL 2...) Xforms uses and XHTML 2 is likely to use XML events [3] which introduces a different model although it requires bindings for the mouse events and the UI events specified in DOM 2 events - in other words an onActivate or equivalent (Xforms allows the more powerful declarative building of actions that XML Events was written to permit). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG10/script.html#OnActivateEventAttribute [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-eventgroupings [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-events So I think that the examples should be checked to make sure they are valid code according to a published specification (same for all the examples), but I don't see the reason not to use things that exist, especially that were included for accessibility reasons... cheers Chaals
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2004 14:19:59 UTC