[dom3events] glossary - target node

View: New views
3 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

[dom3events] glossary - target node

by Anne van Kesteren-2 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Does it still make sense to use the term node now that one of the objects  
that is part of the event flow is not a node? The term "event target"  
seems clear enough on its own and is defined in terms of objects already.  
One less term would not hurt in my opinion, but maybe I miss something.


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/


Re: [dom3events] glossary - target node

by Anne van Kesteren-2 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:56:20 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@...>  
wrote:
> Does it still make sense to use the term node now that one of the  
> objects that is part of the event flow is not a node? The term "event  
> target" seems clear enough on its own and is defined in terms of objects  
> already. One less term would not hurt in my opinion, but maybe I miss  
> something.

This problem also comes up in other sections, e.g. in 3.1 it is stated  
that "Event objects are always dispatched to a node called the event  
target." which is not true. In fact, the graph just before it contradicts  
it.

Fixing this requires some detailed reading around each usage of the term  
"node", "document" and "tree" I think to make sure the sentences also make  
sense when there is none of that. (As in Web Workers for instance.)


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/


Re: [dom3events] glossary (several comments)

by Doug Schepers-3 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi, Anne-

Thanks for your thorough review.  This is really helpful.  I agree with
almost all of your comments, and will make the changes very soon (though
it might wait until after I'm done traveling).  For those I simply agree
with, I probably won't bother replying, and we can talk about the ones
that don't strike me as obvious on first glance.

Much (most?) of the wording in the spec is left over from previous
editors, or even from me when I first took over as editor and was
fuzzier on some bits, and the spec has changed quite a lot, so I'm not
surprised that there the wording is often imprecise (or even outright
wrong).  So, it's excellent that you have pointed out specific issues...
please keep the comments coming, as you find time.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs