W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: DOMActivate vs. Click

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:34:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4A6D204A.7000006@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@mozilla.com>, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, Jacob Rossi <t-jacobr@microsoft.com>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, Andrew Sledd <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Lee Martineau <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com>
Hi, Maciej-

Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 7/26/09 10:59 PM):
> On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> DOMActivate and DOMFocusIn/DOMFocusOut don't really serve independent
> use cases. So their complexity is pure trouble for implementors and
> authors. The only possible tradeoff would be compatibility with existing
> content, and I tend to agree with others here that walled garden content
> should not get much consideration. Walled garden user agents are always
> free to dispatch whatever extra events they choose.

Just to be clear: I was not claiming that all SVG content that uses 
these event types is behind a walled garden (I'm hoping that some of the 
mobile vendors step up to show us some of that content).  And I'd like 
to reiterate that content that is currently walled-garden is 
increasingly able, and increasingly motivated, to

>> My current plan is still to deprecate them from DOM3 Events, not
>> remove them. Implementations can then make the choice of supporting
>> them or not. Personally, I hope you take a good look at possible
>> conflicts with content before you make a final decision.
> If the events are optional for implementations (and it sounds like that
> is what you mean by deprecated),

Yes, I've even added a definition to the DOM3 Events spec to clarify 
that. [1]

>then WebKit will probably align with
> the judgment of other browser engines on whether to keep them.

Do you mean Safari, or WebKit?  I'd be interested to hear from Google, 
KDE/Konqueror, and other folks who have browsers based on WebKit.

>I hope
> it's ok to continue having that conversation among browser engine
> implementors here, even if leaving definitions for the events in the
> spec is the right way to go.

Certainly.  I'm all for coordinating and aligning around 
interoperability, and even on simplifying the interfaces wherever 
possible.  I just happen to disagree on this point, and we've heard from 
other implementers and language designers that also disagree.


-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 03:34:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:36:55 UTC