- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:24:06 -0700
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, www-svg@w3c.org
On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Chris Lilley wrote: > > On Monday, April 24, 2006, 9:05:04 PM, Robin wrote: > > RB> On Apr 24, 2006, at 20:28, Chris Lilley wrote: >>> 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'. > > RB> For the sake of consensus and closing this comment, > > I'm all for both concepts - consensus and closure. However, the > claim that the name defined in the DOM specs is not defined/ > irrelevant/not the same thing needs to be examined, surely. Let me try to explain what I mean by this claim. I think there may be some confusion about what IDL here means. In the C programming language, the following two function signatures are identical in all respects: int myFancyStandardFunction(int event); int myFancyStandardFunction(int evt); Likewise, in IDL, the following two operation definitions are identical in all respects: void handleEvent(in Event event); void handleEvent(in Event evt); Any call to the first is also a valid call to the second. Any implementation of the first is also a valid implementation of the second. Neither interface defines what you should do when converting a string to a function, in itself. It could be taken as a suggestion, but has no normative value in this regard. DOM Events does not define anything about converting strings to functions or what if anything you should add as an implicit parameter name. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 20:24:23 UTC