Re: DOM 4 request wrote on 03/11/2013 06:21:28 AM:

> From: Anne van Kesteren <>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
> Cc:,,
> Date: 03/11/2013 06:22 AM
> Subject: Re: DOM 4 request
> Sent by:
> Resending with corrected addresses.
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren <>
> >> Please let us know if the DOM working group would support adding this
> >> attribute [(activeElement)].
> >
> > It's already supported for SVG at the moment. HTML simply extends the
> > Document interface and does not create one specific for HTML. In terms

Hi Anne,

The issue is that SVG can run in standalone documents. For this reason we
have the following situation:

Here is the current Document object reference in SVG2:
Document element Interface:

Here is the DOM4:
Document element Interface:

Here is the HTML5
HTML5 Document element Interface:

> > of dependencies, HTML and DOM have a mutual dependency already (as
> > unfortunate as that may be). And actually, SVG must have a dependency
> > on HTML too for script scheduling and execution.
We agree that SVG has a huge dependency on HTML for scripting and
introducing tabindex to SVG2 has really brought a lot of these issues to
light in the SVG working group. Yet, the HTML5 Document object interface
has a lot of features that really don't apply in a standalone situation.
Here are a few

  readonly attribute HTMLCollection embeds;
  readonly attribute HTMLCollection plugins;
  readonly attribute HTMLCollection forms;

           attribute EventHandler onblur;   (SVG has a different handler
name for this - onfocusout)

So, are you suggesting that we simply take the HTML5 Document Object
interface and basically address the mapping issues like return null for
objects that have no applicability to SVG in a standalone environment?

If so, then we should also coordinate with the HTML WG and WhatWG on
ensuring clear specification of how this may be populated in the presence
of an SVG document in HTML. I am sure the browses have addressed a lot of
this but it has not been clearly spec'd to my knowledge.

> --

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 13:19:06 UTC