- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:07:22 +0200
- To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Hi Doug, > [...] > | > They do need an errata anyway, since they define a > | > "focusInEvent" literal in their definitions, but use > | > "focus" in their examples [6]. > | > | Hmm fun! That makes them consistent with HTML... > > Yeah, Bjoern says it comes from HTML+Time, right? This is like spaghetti > code. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-XHTMLplusSMIL-20020131/ would be another candidate. > [...] > | > However, SVG does have need to introduce its own events (zoom, for > | > example), so I don't agree with you there. > | > | Did I ever said SVG should not be allowed to do that? > > That's how I read the comment, "Not intrudicing SVG specific "events" > would be another." On second glance, however, I guess you were referring > to > aliased events, not necessary SVG-specific events like zoom, right? Right. Specifications introducing specific events for certain things should be no problem. Although it would be good if they are reviewed by the current group that does events and all that :-) > | http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#doc-reviews > | > | Starting with a Last Call review up to the transition to > | Proposed Recommendation, a Working Group MUST formally > | address any substantive review comment about a technical > | report and SHOULD do so in a timely manner. > > Yeah... but does that apply to comments from *all* the LC periods? Events comments after the LC periods... > There's been, like, 12 of them... ;) Heh. Cheers, Anne -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 08:07:45 UTC