- From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:53:36 +0100
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: <public-webapps@w3.org>
Yes, I'm satisfied with all the changes (although I still think it's useless and a bit risky of minor discrepancies to define document order when DOM Level 3 Core is already normatively referenced), thank you for being so responsive and for the entirety of your effort on this spec.
This makes me even more sorry to have misled you (as you probably already know, since the issue is mentioned in e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Dec/0039.html) by asking to write "document" where the text should read "DOM". (D does stand for Document, but in fact there needn't be one. I tend to repeatedly forget that it's an API spec, not a CSS module. And it's perfectly useful for trees rooted at detached Element or DocumentFragment nodes.) Could you, please, revert this one change?
On the other hand, I won't object either if the concerned fragment ("the document tree or subtree in question") is left as is. After all, this is how most of your commenters at www-svg@w3.org express these same concepts, with no big shadow of confusion within sight.
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 22:54:40 UTC