- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:42:46 -0600
- To: www-svg@w3.org
6.1.2:
"edited" implies, to me, that editing has been done, while the psedo-class seems
to select things that are "being edited". So the choice of name is very poor...
Perhaps ":editable" would be better?
I frankly fail to see the need for this pseudo-class, since it is completely
equivalent to existing not-particularly-complicated CSS rules (as stated in this
section).
6.2:
The SVGDOMRange interface seems to be underspecified. It's not clear to me what
the two SVGElementInstance attributes are supposed to be pointing to, and how
the differ from the start and end of the Range object. It would be good to
clearly define the behavior here.
It's not clear to me how these interfaces deal with the possibility of multiple
selections being present at once (eg a separate selection per editable area, a
selection used by "find" functionality while a different selection is set by the
user with the mouse, etc.), or with the possibility of selections that cannot be
represented via a single DOM range (e.g. a selection in bidi content which is
contiguous in the visual representation may not be contiguous in the logical
(DOM) representation... or a UA may allow selecting individual shapes via a
mechanism such as the control-click mechanism used for discontiguous selections
in listboxes and tables).
The "selection" property of the SVGSVGElement interface is very underspecified.
It's not clear what selection object, if any, this returns. I can't even
reasonably review this part, since the prose simply doesn't exist and the
interface change is meaningless on its own.
Defining a "selection" event in the xml-events namespace seems to have a high
potential for collision with other specifications, to me. Either the event
needs to be clearly made SVG-specific ("svgselection" or some such), or its
definition needs to be made in a context in which other specifications that make
use of XML events will be able to reuse it in a reasonable way.
-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 18:52:07 UTC