W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2006

Re: SVG12: uDOM vs DOMImplementation

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:05:50 +0200
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8tghd29fvt7n88kspt6e2654dno02i4476@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Robin Berjon wrote:
>On Jul 22, 2006, at 03:28, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> After careful consideration, given that hasFeature is not broadly
>>> used and that introducing it requires further specification work that
>>> may cause compatibility problems with the DOM, the WG has decided to
>>> pull that feature and any mention of it from SVG Tiny 1.2.
>>
>> Could you explain why there now is an empty DOMImplementation inter-
>> face?
>
>It provides a convenient location onto which implementations can add  
>specific extensions.

Then I have to disagree with how the Working Group handled the original
issue, even if the DOMImplementation interface was meant to be extended
by implementers, which it is not, this is not explained anywhere in the
draft, and there is no need for SVG Tiny 1.2 to interoperably implement
it, it's just bloat and should be removed from the draft.
-- 
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, 8 August 2006 17:06:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT