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

RE: SVG12: SVGGlobal::document vs AbstractView

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:39:21 -0800
Message-ID: <6ECA24BE410D994496A2AE995367C5C8891D0C@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>


Hi Bjoern,
I am having trouble understanding why you feel that the 'document' attribute on Global should be an SVGDocument instead of a Document. I thought the whole idea with the Global interface was to align with the Window interface which is implemented in HTML browsers and some existing SVG desktop viewers (and which is in process of being standardized in the Web APIs WG), thereby matching the defacto standard that exists out in the real world. 

At the risk of being naïve, I went to an admittedly unofficial specification of the defacto/real world, the O'Reilly "JavaScript - The Definitive Guide" and looked up the Window object. It says that the 'document' attribute is a Document, not an SVGDocument nor an HTMLDocument.

If it were an SVGDocument like you say, does that mean that future HTML browsers will have to access their 'document' attribute via the SVGDocument interface, even if an HTML document is loaded?

What am I missing?

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:51 PM
To: doug.schepers@vectoreal.com
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SVG12: SVGGlobal::document vs AbstractView


* 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 16:40:30 GMT

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