On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:50:47 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > On 25/01/2014 1:18 am, Erik Dahlström wrote: >> I'm wondering if there are any compelling reasons for keeping >> SVGDocument.rootElement around, given that SVG also requires support for >> Document.documentElement. Backwards compat? >> >> I'd like to propose that we remove SVGDocument.rootElement from SVG2. > > I'd love to if we can. Do you think we should add a use counter to > Blink just to make sure it's safe? (My guess is that nobody will > notice.) That is being done, but it will take a release cycle until there are some stats. So, one course of action could be to deprecate it now in SVG2, and remove it when we get the usage stats assuming they're in support. -- Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working GroupReceived on Monday, 27 January 2014 08:52:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:50 UTC