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

Re: SVG12: SVGGlobal::document vs AbstractView

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:51:24 +0100
To: <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <84pk1212v554tf5rgba9er62fc1dhud30c@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Doug Schepers wrote:
>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.

DOM Level 2 Style just extends the interface, it is used directly by
e.g. DOM Level 2 Events, DOM Level 3 Events, SMIL Animation, and SVG
1.1. This is not my concern though. I think that SVGGlobal::document
should be a SVGDocument. The Working Group rejected this request on
the grounds that this introduces problems when Global::document gets
introduced which, presumably, cannot be a SVGDocument. I expect that
Global::document is a DocumentView, in which case you have the same
problem. So I think SVGGlobal::document should be either SVGDocument
or DocumentView, or rather, the 'document' member should be only on
one of SVGGlobals ancestors in the inheritance hierachy.
-- 
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 Friday, 17 March 2006 07:51:22 GMT

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