- From: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:24:41 +1100
- To: KONO Masahiko <kono.masahiko@canon.co.jp>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
I think my response needs some clarification. On 03/11/2005, at 1:12 AM, Dean Jackson wrote: > > Hello Kono-san, > > On 19/05/2005, at 7:17 PM, KONO Masahiko wrote: > >> 15.4 The handler element >> >> <handler> element is different from <script> element in evaluation >> timing. I think this difference is small. Is <script> element which >> is added new attribute evaluate='load'|'called', and so on >> sufficient? > > Unfortunately not. The <handler> element defines a single function > to be > used as an event handler, while <script> has a different semantic > meaning > (it's for defining all sorts of code). We think the difference is > enough > to justify a different element. Since the XML Events specification leaves it up to the host language, in this case SVG, to define event handlers, we decided to add a <handler> element. The semantics for a <script> element are very different from a simple event handler (it's not just whether or not the code is executed at load time). > >> And <handler> element has ev:event attribute. Is <script> element >> and >> <ev:listener> element sufficient? > > This functionality is provided with XML Events. What I meant to say is that while you can achieve something similar with <ev:listener>, the WG believe it is more straightforward to code handlers explicitly. This also avoids the change in semantics of the script element. Dean
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 11:28:06 UTC