- From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:47:11 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, www-svg@w3c.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > 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); Also in ECMAScript. The parameter name has no bearing on the name(s) of the parameter in the calling scope. The IDL doesn't say anything about this name. I'd much rather deprecate 'evt' in favor of 'event'. The latter is far more widely known and used, and I see no gain in shortening and obscuring the name by removing two letters. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 20:49:24 UTC