- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:43:56 -0000
- To: "'Robin Berjon'" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi Robin, Robin wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2006, at 21:38, Mark Birbeck wrote: > > Do you have a reference for that? I'm a big supporter of XML Events > > too, and I'm also a supporter of the changes you need for > SVG. But as > > with others on the list, I'd be keen to see those changes in XML > > Events, rather than some kind of divergence take place. > > I don't have a pointer handy but I can probably come up with > it. I very clearly recall you being at the joint meeting at > some TP during which this was discussed and later agreed to :) I am really intrigued to find out where this decision was taken. It's true that I have been arguing for a few years for an update to XML Events that takes on board QNames and the use of URIs in ev:observer. These changes seem necessary to me, in order to support new types of web applications. But I can't think of what circumstances might have arisen where I would have supported the incorporation of XML Events into another spec, accompanied by the modification of its attributes in such a way that it ceases to be compatible with the original XML Events. That would go against everything that I have been arguing for and developing in the last three or four years--and most particularly my work on compound documents--and I'm sure I wouldn't have taken that lying down! ;) So I support the requirement, but can't imagine when I would have supported how you have gone about it. Still...if there is a reference to some minutes where this happened, I won't deny it! Regards, Mark Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 12:44:30 UTC