- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:51:24 +0100
- To: <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
* Doug Schepers wrote: >After investigation and deliberation, the SVG WG has decided that there is >no inherent conflict in defining SVGGlobal::document as a dom::Document. The >AbstractView interface is listed as optional, and the only place it is used >is in the CSS OM spec. Since SVG Tiny does not support CSS OM, this presents >no conflict. This does not prevent anyone from implementing it, of course, >but it is outside the scope of the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec. DOM Level 2 Style just extends the interface, it is used directly by e.g. DOM Level 2 Events, DOM Level 3 Events, SMIL Animation, and SVG 1.1. This is not my concern though. I think that SVGGlobal::document should be a SVGDocument. The Working Group rejected this request on the grounds that this introduces problems when Global::document gets introduced which, presumably, cannot be a SVGDocument. I expect that Global::document is a DocumentView, in which case you have the same problem. So I think SVGGlobal::document should be either SVGDocument or DocumentView, or rather, the 'document' member should be only on one of SVGGlobals ancestors in the inheritance hierachy. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 07:51:22 UTC