This is the bottom line for myself: To make a current project viewable in FireFox, just to even start that effort requires, reveiwing 50,000 lines of code and incorporating NS in all calls for svg elements. That's just the beginning, because the browser/SVGviewer communication also requires addressing.
I'm willing to meet MOZ halfway...If they recognize that, not just myself, but many others need a means of FF accepting their current ASV efforts, not totally ignoring their creations. If MOZ incorpoates a parsing process that recognizes this, then I will bust my butt to work with them on the browser/viewer communication, and probably help a hell of lot in that area. Otherwise, I will not consider FireFox as an environment for my work at this time. Regards, Francis --- In [email protected], Jonathan Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/6/05, Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Jonathan Watt wrote: > > > But what if you go against these > > > instructions? What if you use createElement instead of createElementNS > > in > > > your SVG documents? What should happen? Is it possible that it could > > create > > > an element in the same namespace as the element you called it on? Well > > yes. > > > Probably it is. The specifications don't say what the namespace ignorant > > > methods should do. That's why it says not to use them. (Probably the DOM > > WG > > > when discussing what should happen couldn't come to an agreement, so > > they > > > left it unspecified, making it possible to get into the mess we find > > > ourselves in now.) > > > > [sfx: coughing bordering on choking] > > > Careful Robin. I want a SVG 1.1 errata, so don't go dying on me! :- ) > > From the DOM 3 Core spec: "A new Element object with the nodeName > > attribute set to tagName, and localName, prefix, and namespaceURI set to > > null." That's what createElement() returns. For setAttribute() things > > are less directly limpid, but it still says "To set an attribute with a > > qualified name and namespace URI, use the setAttributeNS method". > > > > What DOM 3 Core spec? Ooooooooh...DOM 3 Core is finally a REC!! I don't know > how that slipped under my radar. Well, what I said is correct for DOM 2 > Core. I just hadn't noticed DOM 3 Core had arrived (some 18 months ago or so > no less) and set all this in stone. Probably because I'm busy with SVG 1.1, > which has DOM 2 as its normative reference. > > So, basically everyone should read Robin's post. This decision has been > made, and there's no chance this will change now, for better or for worse. > We're going to have to get used to it. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/1U_rlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
