W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2010

Re: removeChild and <use> question

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:36:24 -0600
Message-ID: <da131fde1001121336r13a9c66mea17f655fafb74e3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
So I think we're on the same page as to how this should work:

- yes the document should look as if the <use> element is no longer
present (since it is not pointing at anything and has no cloned
instance tree)
- but the <use> element itself should still be in the DOM

Regards,
Jeff

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
> Boris,
>
> Thanks for the explanations.
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 1/12/10 4:08 PM, Jeff Schiller wrote:
>>> would result in someUsePointingToFoo still holding a reference to a
>>> <use>  element, but it is now detached from the DOM
>>
>> Not at all.  It's in the DOM just fine.  However its cloned instance tree is
>> now gone.  It's the same as if you had a <use xlink:href="#foo"> and had no
>> node with id="foo" in the document.
>>
>
> Ok, I took Patrick's email to mean that the use element itself was
> removed from the DOM.  This is what I found odd.
>
> Jeff
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 21:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:44 GMT