W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Canvas and Interactivity

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:52:33 +1000
To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090715045233.GF32077@arc.mcc.id.au>
Robert O’Callahan:
> > I think it would have been a good idea to forget about units in SVG
> > coordinates, just have user space. Then since access to animated values is
> > rare, move it to a separate interface (e.g. c.animated.cx). Then you could
> > write
> > c.cx = 20;
> > c.cy = 20;
> > c.r = 20;
> > Much better... Oh well.

Jeff Schiller:
> This seems like a very good suggestion for decreasing the verbosity of
> the SVG DOM.  Actually I'm sure this type of feedback (# of getters,
> setters, etc) would have been very valuable when the SVG 1.1 DOM was
> first conceived.
> 
> Since I have not heard anything about WebKit and Mozilla implementing
> the SVGT 1.2 uDOM, will there be an activity for SVG 2.0 to simplify
> the SVG DOM?

Yes, there’s a proposal to simplify these SVG DOM accessors in SVG 2.0:

  http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2044

We discussed whether it would be possible to drop the existing animVal/
baseVal interfaces for something new, but there’s likely too much
content that uses it now.  The above proposal would work on existing
SVGAnimatedLength etc. objects.

There’s another proposal for constructors, so that the factory methods
on SVGSVGElement can be avoided:

  http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/type-constructors/type-constructors.txt

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 04:53:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:42 GMT