- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:43:59 -0400
- To: Domenico Strazzullo <nst@dotuscomus.com>
- CC: Kevin Ar18 <kevinar18@hotmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Hi, Nico- Domenico Strazzullo wrote (on 8/25/10 6:36 AM): > > The original post is always available in the archives. > >> Why the svg element should NEVER "dispatch" an event due to user >> interaction: > > You cite parts of the svg spec as sustaining evidence. The validity itself > of the spec in regard to pointer events is in cause. The spec cannot be > used as evidence for argumentation. Actually, it can and should. There are many details in any technical specification where we pick an arbitrary behavior, which implementers should follow for the sake of interoperability. An example that springs to mind: what is the starting point of a rectangle or circle? This matters because a stroke-dasharray will look different on different viewers otherwise, which is not usually what the content author wants. Some issues are less arbitrary, and there are good reasons for any of several specific behaviors; in that case, we simply have to pick one, based on the best evidence, and require implementations to exhibit that behavior. When there are conflicts between specifications, that does cause a problem; however, don't assume that the first specification got it right. For example, HTML5 deliberately contradicts several other (non-HTML) specifications, because the implications of the behavior they describe is suboptimal in the HTML context, and the group and editor of HTML5 made the conscious choice to change the behavior. In the best cases, this results in a fix to the original spec, through consensus... specs are never perfect, and they can change over time. The SVG spec has changed in the past based on implementation realities; this may be an instance where it changes again. We don't know yet. > Essentially you say "The spec is right because it says so", In most cases, I think that this argument is perfectly reasonable. The spec says what it does because it was the end point of a line of reasoning that the working group responsible for the spec had consensus on. > where we are contesting the very legitimacy of what it says, > as well as the self-attribution of the prerogative of overriding > other specifications. As the editor for the DOM3 Events specification, I feel pretty confident that the SVG 1.1 spec is not contradicting or overriding that spec on this issue. I don't agree with Boris' assessment that SVG 1.1 is self-contradictory here; I think that there is an interpretation of the spec that is perfectly consistent with itself and with other specs. All that said, we may change the spec anyway, to match some implementations. Or we (where we includes the implementers) may ask the implementations to change. That's where we stand with the issue. We'll decide it at the next SVG WG F2F in a week or two. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 17:44:03 UTC