- From: Cameron McCormack <cam-www-svg@aka.mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:35:51 +1000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
In the latest (readable) SVG 1.2 full spec, it states: Thus, when the custom element is within a rendering context (versus non-rendering contexts, such as described under sXBL bindings for SVG resources and sXBL bindings for visual effects), then the custom element behaves as if it were a g element with no attributes and the nodes on xblChildNodes were the children of the g. I don't think it is clear what is meant by "behaves". Does this mean that the bound element implements all the same interfaces as SVGGElement (SVGElement, SVGTests, SVGLangSpace, SVGExternalResourcesRequired, SVGStylable and SVGTransformable) and uses all of the information from these interfaces for rendering? Presumably the reason that it says it "behaves as if it were a g element with no attributes" is so that CSS presentation attributes on the bound element (such as 'font-size') aren't used when computing the CSS values for shadow tree. Though this is the rendering behaviour, does this mean that getting the computed styles with ViewCSS.getComputedStyle on the bound element also doesn't take these attributes into account? What about the other interfaces whose functionality is affected by attributes, such as with the SVGElement.id attribute: does calling getId on the bound element actually return the value of the 'id' attribute on that element, or should it always return null because the element is behaving as if it were a 'g' element with no properties? This could be taken to further extremes, such as returning "g" from the .localName property. Thanks, Cameron -- e-mail : cam (at) mcc.id.au icq : 26955922 web : http://mcc.id.au/ msn : cam-msn (at) aka.mcc.id.au office : +61399055779 jabber : heycam (at) jabber.org
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 04:36:08 UTC