W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: SVGT 1.2: "evt" vs "event" as the implicit event argument to event handlers

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:24:06 -0700
Message-Id: <3FC10A4E-9B62-41CD-9295-27B75C40F562@apple.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, www-svg@w3c.org
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.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.

Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 20:24:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:12 UTC