- From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:28:37 -0400
- To: <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Bjoern- Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: | | In | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Oct/0153.html the SVG | Working Group told me that the proposed design does indeed | introduce the kind of incompatibility I am concerned about, Can you explain which incompatibily that is? | it is not clear why this does not apply anymore, We did not say it does not apply. We simply state that we do not require AbstractView to be implemented, nor do we prevent implementations from using it. Can you state explicitly why you think it should be required? | >Currently, the only specification referencing AbstractView | is CSS-OM, which | >is not applicable to SVG Tiny. Thus, we have chosen to | refrain from making | >any change to the specification in this regard. | | DOM Level 2 Style, DOM Level 2 Events, DOM Level 3 Events, | SVG 1.1, ... | there are many more specifications that directly or | indirectly reference | DOM Level 2 Views. Sorry, I misstated. I meant to say that CSS-OM is the only specification *requiring* AbstractView. | In fact, the replacement specification for the SVG | Tiny 1.2 feature under discussion, <http://www.w3.org/TR/Window/>, does | design the feature in exactly the way I've described. Putting aside the fact that this is onlt a draft in progress, and thus subject to change, it is not clear to me how that spec is incompatible. Can you explain? Regards- Doug
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 13:37:44 UTC