W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

SVG 1.2 Comment: Text enhancements

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:42:46 -0600
Message-ID: <41A384A6.5050403@mit.edu>
To: www-svg@w3.org


"edited" implies, to me, that editing has been done, while the psedo-class seems 
to select things that are "being edited".  So the choice of name is very poor... 
Perhaps ":editable" would be better?

I frankly fail to see the need for this pseudo-class, since it is completely 
equivalent to existing not-particularly-complicated CSS rules (as stated in this 


The SVGDOMRange interface seems to be underspecified.  It's not clear to me what 
the two SVGElementInstance attributes are supposed to be pointing to, and how 
the differ from the start and end of the Range object.  It would be good to 
clearly define the behavior here.

It's not clear to me how these interfaces deal with the possibility of multiple 
selections being present at once (eg a separate selection per editable area, a 
selection used by "find" functionality while a different selection is set by the 
user with the mouse, etc.), or with the possibility of selections that cannot be 
represented via a single DOM range (e.g. a selection in bidi content which is 
contiguous in the visual representation may not be contiguous in the logical 
(DOM) representation... or a UA may allow selecting individual shapes via a 
mechanism such as the control-click mechanism used for discontiguous selections 
in listboxes and tables).

The "selection" property of the SVGSVGElement interface is very underspecified. 
It's not clear what selection object, if any, this returns.  I can't even 
reasonably review this part, since the prose simply doesn't exist and the 
interface change is meaningless on its own.

Defining a "selection" event in the xml-events namespace seems to have a high 
potential for collision with other specifications, to me.  Either the event 
needs to be clearly made SVG-specific ("svgselection" or some such), or its 
definition needs to be made in a context in which other specifications that make 
use of XML events will be able to reuse it in a reasonable way.

Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 18:52:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC