- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:13:49 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Takashi Sakamoto <tasak@google.com>
On 6/18/13 8:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> Is there a way to just say that <svg:style> is identical to >>> <html:style>, except for the namespace? That would let us drop most >>> of the definition, and stay permanently up-to-date. >> That'd be nice, but is that feasible given that they have different DOM >> interfaces? We could have HTML split out the meat of HTMLStyleElement into >> a separate interface that can be mixed in to SVGStyleElement, I guess. > Two additional possibilities: > > 1. Make SVGStyleElement just inherit from HTMLStyleElement. > 2. Drop SVGStyleElement, make <svg:style> implement HTMLStyleElement instead. > > Both of these have the downside that "el instanceof SVGElement" no > longer works for <svg:style>, but I doubt there's actually any compat > risk. > > ~TJ > > 3. SVGStyleElement implements HTMLStyleElement; This doesn't have the mentioned downside. It probably has other downsides. Is it a big problem to just specify the members in SVGStyleElement? It's not like the HTML interface changes often -- it has gained a single member. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 07:13:39 UTC