- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:11:28 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: > > I definitely understand the points you are making below; however, the > W3C and the SVG WG will have to trade off the requirements of unified > HTML+SVG web browser implementers (which want to implement a single DOM > engine) and the requirements of other SVG workflows, such as JSR-226. These workflows will use Java, right? And therefore won't be compatible with the ECMAScript-based Web browser environments? If they won't be interoperable anyway, it doesn't seem like there is any reason for them to use the same interfaces. Thus: > 3) Treat the uDOM as an SVG+Java-only thing. Thus, it would only be > available via the Java language binding. ...sems fine. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 18:12:45 UTC