- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:15:50 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Hello Robin, Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 2:52:07 PM, you wrote: > On 15/10/2014 14:10 , Daniel Appelquist wrote: >> The charter calls for “An API, compatible with DOM (Document Object >> Model), for using script to view, add, remove, or change the elements >> and attributes of the DOM tree, to handle interactivity, and to provide >> special functionality, through a set of events and methods.” > Isn't that just the SVG DOM? It certainly could use some serious > refurbishing, but I'm not sure that it's related to extensible Web > stuff. Or am I missing something? It is the SVG DOM, yes (the section quoted is merely saying that the syntax, DOM, and styling of SVG are all in scope). On the other hand, making the SVG DOM less crap, er, I mean, more aligned with the needs of current Web developers, is part of the plan for SVG2: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Requirements_Input#Improve_the_DOM https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/SVG2_Planning_Page There is a tension between those who want to make it a good API for the future and those who are primarily concerned about backwards compatibility (sometimes to the point of wanting no changes at all). We are trying to find a good way forward that is sensitive to both points of view. For example, cruft that was never interoperably implemented is much easier to change; things that are more easily and simply done in a modern API way can be developed in parallel, the old deprecated for new content, and eventually phased out from implementations once there is evidence that it has fallen out of use. We would welcome input from the TAG about the DOM refactoring and redesign. -- Best regards, Chris Lilley, Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 19:15:55 UTC