- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 13:50:00 +1100
- To: Philip Rogers <pdr@google.com>
- CC: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>, Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>, Florin Malita <fmalita@google.com>, Stephen Chenney <schenney@google.com>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
Hi Philip, Philip Rogers wrote: > Can we remove the instance tree in SVG2? I'm in favour of this. > Over the holidays I implemented SVG's <use> in terms of pure web > components. This works well and <use>+web components will vastly > simplify the SVG2 spec. Great! As you know we haven't yet made the corresponding spec changes. Did you find anything special that we need to handle in the spec? How does the styling inheritance work with <use> now in Blink? Is there any impediment to using object-fill, object-stroke, etc. in the definition and having them refer to the values of fill/stroke on the <use> element? > Can we unify on the event model used by shadow dom and drop the instance > tree? > http://www.w3.org/TR/components-intro/#events That sounds sensible to me at first glance.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 02:50:35 UTC