- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:14:52 +0200
- To: "Doug Schepers" <doug@schepers.cc>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
* Doug Schepers wrote: >After discussion, and taking into account the many posts on this thread, we >have resolved that since AbstractView is not mandatory in DOM2, it is not >required in SVG Tiny. We do not forbid its use by implementors, however, so >we do not believe that it creates incompatibilities with any future Window >specification. It is entirely irrelevant whether DOM Level 2 requires implementation of DOM Level 2 Views, SVG Tiny 1.2 includes features that are not required either, and it does not include features that are required e.g. by the DOM Level 2 Core and XML modules. In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Oct/0153.html the SVG Working Group told me that the proposed design does indeed introduce the kind of incompatibility I am concerned about, it is not clear why this does not apply anymore, and why regardless of whether there are actual incompatibilities to be expected, the proposed design is in any way better >Currently, the only specification referencing AbstractView is CSS-OM, which >is not applicable to SVG Tiny. Thus, we have chosen to refrain from making >any change to the specification in this regard. DOM Level 2 Style, DOM Level 2 Events, DOM Level 3 Events, SVG 1.1, ... there are many more specifications that directly or indirectly reference DOM Level 2 Views. In fact, the replacement specification for the SVG Tiny 1.2 feature under discussion, <http://www.w3.org/TR/Window/>, does design the feature in exactly the way I've described. -- 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, 25 April 2006 11:15:01 UTC