"Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:410-22004329232712781@m......
> <script> somefunction ( ) { code } </script>
> ...
> <span id="span1" onclick="somefunction()">The text</span>
>
> One could  use
> <script id="somefunction"> {code} </script>
> <listener observer="span1" event="click" handler ="#somefunction" />
> ...
> <span id="span1">The text</span>

An unfortunate mechanism which does more to confuse script/content.  The
current SVG proposals to extend XML Events at least addresses some of this -
but the DOM methods should be preferred, I don't see the motivation for
having XML events at all.  DOM addEventListener should be preferred.

>  Interaction between the scripts would be possible via the DOM.

By firing mutation events on some special case?

> However being able to use statements like:
>    b = 7;
> without having to worry about unintended side effects is a nice benefit.

Not really, a closure gives you that trivially, and the inability to share
functions across is a much more significant problem.

It seems to me that you're concerned with collisions between variables and
mutations of  script elements, the first of which better script techniques
can solve, the 2nd is simply not a problem with how scripts are defined in
other XML based languages so I don't see why it should be in XHTML2.

Jim.