[Bug 24181] [Shadow]: There's isn't a way to append shadow elements in SVG

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24181

Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ed@opera.com

--- Comment #2 from Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com> ---
(In reply to Tab Atkins Jr. from comment #1)
> Nope, nope nope nope nope nope.  We are *not* adding more "exactly like the
> HTML element, but with a different interface name" things.
> 
> Consider this further impetus for the glorious "just put SVG in the HTML
> namespace already" future.

I agree that in the best of worlds svg and html would just interleave nicely
and everything would just work. However, we do need to make some changes for
that to happen.

Issues:
1. Parsing of the shadow element (and content, template and possibly others).
This assumes that the HTML parsing algorithm doesn't break out of "svg-mode" if
encountering a shadow/content/template element inside an svg fragment. I expect
that if using svg standalone (aka in xml mode) you'd still have to XHTML
namespace these elements (horribly ugly, but unless we require some sort of
special handling to push the elements into the html namespace that's what we
have to do).
2. Rendering of non-svg elements in an svg context - we need the svg spec to
allow and require that at least for the Shadow DOM elements.
2.1. Note that https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/embedded.html already
imports/renames a bunch of html elements. We should strive to solve these in a
similar way.
3. Assuming the Shadow DOM elements stay in the html namespace and do render in
svg, should they (if inside of svg content) have partial interfaces that append
some SVG traits like getting the current transform, bbox and so on? Should that
be decided on an element to element basis, or should there be a default
fallback partial interface?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 09:44:22 UTC