W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Scoped SVG styles?

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:13:49 +0200
Message-ID: <51C008AD.8090507@opera.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Takashi Sakamoto <tasak@google.com>
On 6/18/13 8:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> Is there a way to just say that <svg:style> is identical to
>>> <html:style>, except for the namespace?  That would let us drop most
>>> of the definition, and stay permanently up-to-date.
>> That'd be nice, but is that feasible given that they have different DOM
>> interfaces?  We could have HTML split out the meat of HTMLStyleElement into
>> a separate interface that can be mixed in to SVGStyleElement, I guess.
> Two additional possibilities:
>
> 1. Make SVGStyleElement just inherit from HTMLStyleElement.
> 2. Drop SVGStyleElement, make <svg:style> implement HTMLStyleElement instead.
>
> Both of these have the downside that "el instanceof SVGElement" no
> longer works for <svg:style>, but I doubt there's actually any compat
> risk.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
3. SVGStyleElement implements HTMLStyleElement;

This doesn't have the mentioned downside. It probably has other downsides.

Is it a big problem to just specify the members in SVGStyleElement? It's 
not like the HTML interface changes often -- it has gained a single member.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 07:13:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC