W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Some thoughts on DOM 2.0, Simpler

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:38:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4A6D3D44.2010900@w3.org>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Jeff-

Jeff Schiller wrote (on 7/27/09 1:19 AM):
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Doug Schepers<schepers@w3.org>  wrote:
>>  However, I will note that since SVG is so attribute-heavy, many if not most
>>  elements will not require child content, especially if you aren't using
>>  SMIL, so I think the insertion constructors are still extremely useful, so
>>  I've kept them in.
> I think they are useful yes.
> But <g>, <a>, <text>, <tspan>, <textPath>, <filter> and <font> all
> depend on child content, not to mention <title> and <desc> for any
> element.

I suspect a survey of SVG content would find that the majority of 
element by use do not have child content... I'd guess it would be mostly 
<path> and other rendering elements.  (I would love to have hard data on 
that!)  But yeah... *any* element can have children, so there is clearly 
a use case for composition-before-insertion.

(Please don't put <title> and <desc> on every element, though... just 
the ones where it's meaningful.)

> In fact, one might go as far as to say that anything but basic shapes
> and paths depend on child content, so it's not just "SMIL" :P
> (to be read as if spoken by The Simpson's Comic Book Guy)

Worst. Reference. Evar.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 05:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:23 UTC