- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:28:19 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: doug.schepers@vectoreal.com, www-svg@w3c.org
On Friday, April 21, 2006, 11:37:17 PM, Maciej wrote: MS> A) I agree that changing what "event" or "evt" means for XHTML or MS> HTML event handler attributes is out of scope for SVG. When you say "changing", which is the published specification that would change? I ask because as far as we can tell there isn't one. But yes if this were to change W3C-wide it would be WebAPI that would likely own that spec. MS> B) However, in the case of SVG, adding "event" as a second supported MS> name for the implicit event parameter (or replacing "evt") would MS> clearly be in scope for the SVG WG, and clearly out of scope for Web MS> API and CDF. To make this change in a separate spec would require MS> directly contradicting the SVG 1.2 Tiny spec as written. Therefore I MS> strongly disagree if you think some other working group should change MS> what SVG means. I agree and when this was discussed in the group, adding 'event' to SVG alongside 'evt' was clearly something SVG would do to help with harmonization. MS> C) I strongly disagree that "event" should be deprecated instead of MS> "evt". There are many orders of magnitude more HTML documents than MS> SVG documents, thus where the two disagree on a point of arbitrary MS> naming it is much more sensible to change SVG. There is really no MS> significant way in which "evt" is a better name than "event", so the MS> change that results in less content changing is the better one, if we MS> want this to eventually be harmonized. Did you count the number of VoiceXML documents as well? The cost of changing VoiceXML implementations is pretty high, since they tend to be in mission-critical places. To be clear - 'evt' is what specifications based on DOM Level 2 and DOM Level 3 have been using for a while now. 'event' is what HTML browsers have in practice been using, in an undocumented way. To ask all specifications that have i good faith used DOM Levels 2 and 3 to change is asking a lot. Then again, to ask the legacy HTML implementations to change immediately is askig a lot too. This is why adding 'event' to SVG is suggested, to help with HTML+SVG CDI cases; but deprecating the otherwise undocumented 'event' over time and keeping the standardized 'evt'. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 18:28:18 UTC