- From: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:27:58 -0400
- To: cogit@ludicrum.org
- Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, www-smil-request@w3.org, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, www-smil@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTi=qun0FZ025HQLmm4_BvspaSdOAL8_4CfQRqAnK@mail.gmail.com>
I'll inject use cases, hopefully for clarity. If you intercept an F5 and you don''t want the browser to perform a refresh, you call preventDefault() If you intercept a right click and you don't want the browser to pop up a menu, perhaps you want to do it yourself, you call preventDefault() I haven't worked with SMIL since I was on the group, I hope to change that soon. That experience is too foggy for me to give a useful comment. I hope the use cases help. On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM, <cogit@ludicrum.org> wrote: > I think I agree with Jack. IIRC, the behavior Brian describes might be > appropriate after a cancelPropagate() call, but not after preventDefault(). > Apologies if I have the method names wrong - am citing from memory. > > Patrick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> > Sender: www-smil-request@w3.org > Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:43:24 > To: Brian Birtles<birtles@gmail.com> > Cc: <www-smil@w3.org>; www-svg<www-svg@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Should event and accessKey timing respect preventDefault? > > > On 27 aug 2010, at 04:37, Brian Birtles wrote: > > > (Cross-posting to www-smil and www-svg since although this is a SMIL > > issue it is probably recently of more concern to SVG implementers and > > authors.) > > > > Dear all, > > > > SMIL as incorporated in SVG allows for animations to be keyed off > > various DOM events such as mouse clicks (event timing) as well as > > keyboard inputs (accessKey timing). > > > > One area that would benefit from clarification is whether animations > > should be triggered when preventDefault is called on the event in > > question (and presuming that event is cancelable). > > > I haven't looked closely at preventDefault (up until 2 minutes ago:-), but > my impression is that it it should the opposite from what you suggest. > You seem to suggest > someone calls event->preventDefault(), therefore the default action for > the event on its target node doesn't happen. > > My understanding is > if the event comes in, and the target node decides not to take the default > action for some reason, then it should also call event->preventDefault(). > > If my understanding is correct then I think there is no issue. Otherwise, > could you point me to some references? > -- > Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack<http://www.cwi.nl/%7Ejack> > If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman > > > > > -- Cheers! Rick
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 22:28:31 UTC