- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 06:54:33 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
Hi, Could someone please explain to me, why http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml-events-20010608 introduces 4 new elements to handle events? Why was it preferred to add new elements instead of relying on scripts themselves to handle events? I'm sorry but I don't see why e.g. <img id="special" ... > <onevent id="override" type="dom-click"> ... the desired event handler ... <stopevent/> </onevent> </img> should be a good idea. This appears to me like <center> <font face=arial color=#5eff00>some <b>important</b> things<br><br> this is <s>deleted</s> and this <u>underlined</u><br><br> we can even have <blockquote> <ul> cool and <blink>blinking</blink> indentation </ul> </blockquote> </center> but with scripting rather then visual information. I see even the style attribute beeing deprecated in XHTML 1.1, so most style information will be kept out of the document but does the WG really consider to mix structural and semantic rich XHTML elements and attributes with scripting? What's wrong with some generic event model to register events? E.g. ...addEventListener( "submit", submitListener, 0); ...submitListener::handle_event( evt ) { /* handle this event */ } maybe with some additional parameter (an ID) to identify for which elements the current Listener is active? I don't see what value this XHTML Event module add to XHTML. I could even live with those event handling attributes for most XHTML elements, but I don't see any good reason why scripting information should be kept inside the document structure instead of the script itself. -- Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de 25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:55:38 UTC