- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:04:55 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Jonas Sicking wrote: >> I'm not following this argument at all. Neither would content that uses >> .globalStorage, .forms, .querySelector or anything else that's not in >> the SVG Tiny spec. >> >> We're trying to make a new API here, of course content that uses that >> API isn't going to work in implementations that don't support it. > > Look at this from the perspective of the SVG Working Group. The idea was > simply that the element traversal feature defined in the SVG Tiny 1.2 CR > would be put in a separate specification maintained by a separate WG and > they would replace their definition with a reference to the new spec. > > If we add features to the specification they don't want to require of > SVG Tiny 1.2 clients, they can no longer do that, they have to "profile" > the specification and highlight, probably in both specifications, that > the new feature is not necessarily available in SVG Tiny 1.2 clients, > leading to complaints about the profiling and confusion among authors, > who will use the feature in their supposedly Tiny 1.2 content because it > happens to work in the clients they tested it in (but not in others). > > Both would be less so if the new feature is not added to this version of > the element traversal specification, so I would expect them to say they > are unhappy with the addition and, if the feature really has to be > added, ask that it be added to some other specification. It's simply a > problem you'll likely have to deal with when adopting the NodeList idea. Ah, thanks, that does explain the issue. Though I think that if we want the web to have a .childElements NodeList available then we have two options: 1. Add it to the ElementTraversal spec and have SVG Tiny say that they no longer require the full ElementTraversal spec. 2. Add it to a separate unrelated spec, such as HTML5. Result 2 doesn't seem any better than 1. The end result for both is that SVG tiny only require a certain set of properties, and with 2 we'd have to wait some undefined amount of time before getting it into an Rec, possibly of a spec that will have a much slower adoption rate. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 17:05:36 UTC