- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:33:08 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
The Working Group just discussed `Breaking change re a/target IDL representation`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <AmeliaBR> Topic: Breaking change re a/target IDL representation<br> <AmeliaBR> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/409<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: I was tidying up the PR for merging, but we did have comments concerned about the breaking change.<br> <AmeliaBR> ... We had previously resolved on that change, wanted to confirm before merging.<br> <AmeliaBR> Dirk: Do we have usage statistics?<br> <AmeliaBR> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/315#issuecomment-374485871<br> <AmeliaBR> Yes, posted in the issue discussion ^^<br> <AmeliaBR> Dirk: So usage is 0.002058%<br> <krit> V8SVGAElement_Target_AttributeGetter 0.002058%<br> <AmeliaBR> Eric: That's tiny. We'd be happy to match other browsers. Also no desire to preserve the SMIL use case.<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: We did discuss (in #312) also enhancing SVGAnimatedString with putForwards, so it can behave a little more like a DOMString, for cases like href where we can't change the actual IDL type.<br> <AmeliaBR> Dirk: One issue is can we delay this change to 2.1?<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: The longer its out there as SVGAnimatedString, the more potential for web compatibility issues.<br> <AmeliaBR> Dirk: But there already is the compat risk. We have compatible implementations in all browsers.<br> <ericwilligers> My comment: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/409#discussion_r200943051<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: The new attributes may also need to be removed if we don't get implementations. But that's less of an issue, if they're not breaking.<br> <AmeliaBR> Dirk: I'm open to the change, I'm just worried we won't get implementations.<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: Can we make the change, but mark it at-risk pending implementations? But I guess we still need to tell implementers what they should do.<br> <AmeliaBR> Eric: What's the risk of no change?<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: Risk is increased incompatibility versus HTML.<br> <AmeliaBR> ... I'd recommend making the change, but we need to follow up with browser bugs to make them update to match.<br> <AmeliaBR> Eric: We really need some commitments.<br> <AmeliaBR> ... We wouldn't make the change in Blink until there is movement from other browsers.<br> <AmeliaBR> Amelia: I can revert the changes for `target` specifically in the PR, merge the other changes, and then open up an issue specifically for `target`.<br> <AmeliaBR> ... We need commitments from multiple implementers to all make the change at the same time if it is going to happen at all.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/409#issuecomment-412654080 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 13 August 2018 20:33:14 UTC