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

RE: SVG12: SVGGlobal::document vs AbstractView

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:12:14 -0500
To: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20060317051215.20140109EAC@pilfer.dreamhost.com>

Hi, Björn-

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
| 
|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/svgudom.html
| appendix A.7.19 states the SVGGlobal::document member is of type
| dom::Document; it's not clear why it is not of type SVGDocument,
| how it is defined in SVG 1.2 Full and how possible conflicts are
| resolved if the global/Global object implements AbstractView
| where the document member is of type DocumentView. Please change
| the draft such that this is clear; if there are no cases where
| the document member is not of type SVGDocument, please change
| the member to be of type SVGDocument.

After investigation and deliberation, the SVG WG has decided that there is
no inherent conflict in defining SVGGlobal::document as a dom::Document. The
AbstractView interface is listed as optional, and the only place it is used
is in the CSS OM spec. Since SVG Tiny does not support CSS OM, this presents
no conflict. This does not prevent anyone from implementing it, of course,
but it is outside the scope of the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec. Therefore, we have
decided to keep the spec as it stands on this issue. Nevertheless, we thank
you for your diligence in pointing out possible points of conflict.

We trust that this satisfies your issue; if it does not, please let us know
within 2 weeks.

Regards-
Doug, on behalf of your fan club, the SVG WG

doug.schepers@vectoreal.com
www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 05:12:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT