RE: A few comments on http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/improving-svg-dom/

 

Rob O’Callahan wrote: 

>Are <switch>, hasExtension, systemLanguage, requiredFeatures and requiredExtensions worth keeping? I think this kind of feature selection is widely considerd an anti-pattern at this point. Have these actually been used in good ways? If so, I haven't seen it.

I’m a bit confused. Is this to be read (1)

“Are <switch>/hasExtension

and <switch>/systemLanguage

and…

worth keeping?”

 

or as (2) 

“Is <switch> worth keeping?

and is hasExtension worth keeping?

and …”

 

I read it at first as (1), but thought switch was a good thing.

I see language in the SVG2 draft  https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/extend.html#ForeignObjectElement that says

“all conforming SVG user agents would need to support the ‘switch <https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/struct.html#SwitchElement> ’ element and must be able to render valid SVG elements when they appear as one of the alternatives within a ‘switch <https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/struct.html#SwitchElement> ’ element.”

 

In https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/struct.html there is language about treating unknown elements as <g>:

“To allow fallbacks without the use of ‘switch <https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/struct.html#SwitchElement> ’, and to align with the behavior of unknown elements in HTML.”

  , suggesting that people for whatever reason might want to avoid <switch>.

 

Regards

David