W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: SVG12: #text traits

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 04:00:21 +0200
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <42b37b63.196827687@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>* For better or worse, #text was agreed to after lengthy (and sometimes 
>painful) coordination discussions between the JSR-226 Expert Group within 
>the Java Community Process and the SVG Working Group within the W3C. 
>Formally, it is defined within a JCP spec and thus the decision about #text 
>was a JCP decision, not a W3C decision, but the coordination agreement was 
>that the JCP would do its best to maintain compatibility with existing SVG 
>Recomemendations and the W3C would do its best to make SVG-t 1.2 upwards 
>compatible with JSR-226.

org.w3c.dom.svg is owned by W3C and formally defined in W3C Technical
Reports. JSR-226's extensions to org.w3c.dom.svg are proprietary until
there is W3C consensus about these extensions. This is clear from the
draft in fact, it formally defines #text, it does not refer to JSR-226
as normative reference for the definitions and JSR-226 notes

  The SVG Tiny 1.1 DOM API defined in this specification is subset of
  W3C SVG Tiny 1.2 uDOM (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/svgudom.html).

  Note: The JSR 226 DOM APIs (in the org.w3c.dom, org.w3c.dom.events
  and org.w3c.dom.svg packages) are binary compatible with the SVG 1.2
  Tiny DOM. This means that code compiled against the JSR 226 DOM APIs
  can run on a conformance implementation of the SVG 1.2 Tiny DOM.

So it's clear that the W3C specifications and language bindings are
authoritative. It's also clear that the expert group and the SVG WG
did not coordinate very well as JSR-226 is not a subset of and not
binary compatible with the current Last Call Working Draft.

Now, depending on whether and how the draft is changed to resolve all
these problems it might make sense to keep the #text trait as depre-
cated "backwards"-compatibility feature that must not be implemented
for anything but <text>, where it behaves exactly as defined in JSR-
226 (and I do not think this is exactly like textContent).

I would like to point out though that I've registered my concerns
regarding #text and legacy interfaces in the SVG DOM subset long ago,

  http://www.w3.org/mid/41e46161.181259968@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de
  http://www.w3.org/mid/4216ac75.23952484@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de

It seems, by formally addressing my comments and regular publication
of Working Drafts such incompatibilities could have been avoided.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 01:59:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT