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

Re: SVGT 1.2: General Comment uDOM

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:30:46 +0200
Message-Id: <6977836B-0908-4360-977E-F3BE3B8ABFE8@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
To: Eric Seidel <eseidel@apple.com>

Hi Eric,

On Dec 28, 2005, at 22:45, Eric Seidel wrote:
> I would like to echo other's comments, with regard to the uDOM.   
> Reading through it, the uDOM seems a particularly odd beast.  It  
> seems that the SVG specification would be better served to adopt a  
> strict (compatible) sub-set of the DOM 3 specification through  
> normative reference, and only make additions to the DOM for SVG- 
> only attributes and elements.  As it stands, the uDOM makes several  
> (in the eyes of a desktop browser vendor) duplicative (and therefor  
> unwelcome) additions the the DOM.  Notably in the areas of text,  
> attribute and network communication handling.
>
> I would like to encourage the SVG working group to at least add a  
> section further explaining the need for the uDOM as it stands now  
> and why the goals of the uDOM (size?) could not have been  
> accomplished through the use of a strict-subset of DOM 3.
>
> Furthermore, I would suggest, that if it is the intention of the  
> SVG working group to continue requirement of a uDOM implementation,  
> that they consider breaking the uDOM out into it's own  
> specification, given that it makes generic extensions to DOM3 (like  
> "traits"), which should ideally be used by other future languages  
> in a CDF environment (such as HTML5/XHTML2.0/MathML).

Several steps have been taken to address your concerns:

  - the DOM 3 parts are now used entirely by reference
  - we have attempted to clarify various parts of the introduction to  
better justify the need for the uDOM
  - we're listing a number of parts of the API to be replaced by the  
Web APIs WG's work as soon as possible (when and how depends on the  
exact timeline)

Regarding sharing a generic style API with other languages, we are  
much in favour of doing that in as close a future as can be and  
discussion has started along those lines, but until it exists we need  
a solution.

Thank you very much for your comments, please let us know shortly if  
this does not address your concerns,

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 13:30:50 GMT

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