- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:06:40 +0100
- To: "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:15:57 +0100, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:38 AM, "Erik Dahlstrom" <ed@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:11:59 +0100, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to request the following topics for the agenda this >>> Thursday: >>> >>> SVG2: >>> Philip Rogers and I created a diagram of the dependency trees from SVG >>> 1.1 and SVG2 [1]. >>> 1) Together with Cameron, we figured out that SVGLocatableElement and >>> SVGTransformableElement can be combined with the new inheritance >>> concept. >>> 2) Should SVGTextContentElement inherit from SVGGraphicsElement or >>> SVGGeometryElement (currently in the draft)? The later provides neat >>> methods like isPointInPatth, which on the other hand are not so easy to >>> implement on some platforms. >> >> 3) why shouldn't e.g the <pattern> element have typed DOM access to >> @patternTransform? Basically I'm wondering why this shouldn't also >> inherit >> SVGTransformableElement. > > It specifies patternTransform on it's own and does have the SVGDOM API > as transformable elements do have on transform. Ditto for > SVGGradientElement. I suggest the same for SVGClipPathElement. Ah ofc, looked too much at the svg2 diagram instead of the spec. Nevermind then. -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 09:07:14 UTC