Re: Feedback on 07 September 2010 draft re DOMActivate

Thanks for your reply, Jonas.  I notice that while your arguments  
speak strongly in favor of having an event named "click" with the  
semantics of "device independent abstract event with the meaning of  
activation", I do not see a single argument against *permitting* the  
existing synonym called "DOMActivate".

Interestingly, you say "The goal here has been one of accessibility"  
and go on to imply that we wish to "reeducate everyone".  If you'll  
notice, our request was not to remove "click" nor to change anyone  
else's mind about how to use it -- rather, our request was not to  
deprecate the use of DOMActivate.  If you are interested in  
accessibility and broad adoption, what have you to fear from  
supporting both names?

-- dan

On Nov 16, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Michael Bodell  
> <mbodell@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> The Voice Browser Working Group has concerns about the deprecation of
>> DOMActivate.  I.e., the:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Warning! The DOMActivate event type is defined in this  
>> specification for
>> reference and completeness, but this specification deprecates the  
>> use of
>> this event type in favor of the related event type click. Other
>> specifications may define and maintain their own DOMActivate event  
>> type
>> for backwards compatibility."
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to see a device independent abstract event with the  
>> meaning of
>> activation.
>
> The "click" event is such an event.
>
>>  The proposed click event is not a satisfactory replacement for
>> languages and scenarios that don't have a concept of pointer  
>> button, and is
>> confusing as an event that means "some abstract activation has  
>> occured".
>
> It is unfortunate that the event has the name "click" yes. But it's
> much more realistic to change the minds of a few specification
> authors, than to change billions of web pages, millions of web
> authors, and thousands of tools.
>
> The goal here has been one of accessibility. There are a lot of
> content and mind share out there for "click" having the meaning of
> "abstract activation". It is likely much more successful to keep that
> meaning than to try to reeducate everyone that they should use
> something other than "click".
>
> The best thing we can do is to try to ensure that this mistake does
> not happen again. Some of the mistakes of DOMActivate were:
>
> * Added too late, when mindshare for "click" had already picked up.
> * Implemented too late, making people use "click" since "it works".
> * Poor choice in name. "DOMActivate" is both more than twice as long
> as "click" and more awkward to type due to the mixed casing. The mixed
> casing also creates issues in case insensitive environments such as
> HTML.
>
> So lets try to learn from these mistakes and ensure that history  
> doesn't repeat.
>
>> We have been writing our VXML 3.0 specification using DOMActivate to
>> activate specific handling of elements and handlers, and we have  
>> the need
>> for some abstract activation event that is independent of user device
>> interaction.  Rather than forcing us to define and maintain a  
>> DOMActivate
>> event please consider just not deprecating the event from the DOM3
>> specification.
>
> That would not change the large body of content, nor the mind share
> among web developers, that "click" is used for "abstract activation".
>
> Best Regards,
> Jonas Sicking
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 09:35:15 UTC