- From: Eric Seidel <eseidel@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:45:13 -0600
- To: www-svg@w3.org
== This message seems to have died somewhere in transit, resending. == Greetings, I would like to echo other's comments, with regard to the uDOM. Reading through it, the uDOM seems a particularly odd beast. It seems that the SVG specification would be better served to adopt a strict (compatible) sub-set of the DOM 3 specification through normative reference, and only make additions to the DOM for SVG-only attributes and elements. As it stands, the uDOM makes several (in the eyes of a desktop browser vendor) duplicative (and therefor unwelcome) additions the the DOM. Notably in the areas of text, attribute and network communication handling. I would like to encourage the SVG working group to at least add a section further explaining the need for the uDOM as it stands now and why the goals of the uDOM (size?) could not have been accomplished through the use of a strict-subset of DOM 3. Furthermore, I would suggest, that if it is the intention of the SVG working group to continue requirement of a uDOM implementation, that they consider breaking the uDOM out into it's own specification, given that it makes generic extensions to DOM3 (like "traits"), which should ideally be used by other future languages in a CDF environment (such as HTML5/XHTML2.0/MathML). -eric
Received on Wednesday, 28 December 2005 21:45:23 UTC