- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:54:52 +1000
- To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Erik Dahlstrom: > Changing getSVGDocument to return a Document would be better, the > alternative might be confusing to authors (especially given that people > already use these methods interchangably because of browser variations). I’m happy with that. > > Also, the wording about implementing this on HTML <object> DOM objects > > has been lost. Without it, nothing implements this interface. > > We could add that part back, or we could perhaps link to the definition > of EmbeddingElement. Given, as you say, we wouldn’t be able to normatively reference EmbeddingElement since the Window spec is a WD, and it’s more like a new feature anyway, I’d be happy with keeping the current proposed wording to say that it is like contentDocument, and also to have the wording saying that it would be implemented on things like <html:object>. I’m fine with it not being a normative requirement (e.g. “the expectation is that blah would implement this”), and suggesting to use contentDocument instead, in anticipation of us dropping it some time in the future. > I'd be very happy indeed if we could require the EmbeddingElement > interface instead of getSVGDocument, however it seems like the > <html:embed> element doesn't offer this interface. I think it would be > better to do this change in SVG 2.0. Agreed. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 06:55:31 UTC