12667 2011-05-17 11:00:50 +0000 Setting doc.title in an SVG document doesn't (necessarily) throw 2011-09-23 08:09:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other CLOSED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-tree-accessors P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian annevk cam ian mike Ms2ger public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 48558 0 contributor 2011-05-17 11:00:50 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/dom.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-tree-accessors Comment: Setting doc.title in an SVG document doesn't (necessarily) throw Posted from: 157.193.48.31 by ms2ger@gmail.com User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) 52319 1 mike 2011-08-04 05:00:10 +0000 mass-moved component to LC1 54430 2 ian 2011-08-09 04:59:08 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't understand. Could you elaborate? 54432 3 cam 2011-08-09 05:16:09 +0000 It'll throw if the script is in strict mode, but not otherwise. Does the algorithm here deliberately cover its eyes as to whether the IDL attribute on SVGDocument is readonly or not, just in case we make it writable in the future? 54447 4 Ms2ger 2011-08-09 09:08:45 +0000 What Cameron said. 54953 5 annevk 2011-08-14 09:35:10 +0000 Cameron, the problem is they will end up being the same attribute. So it will necessarily have to be writable. Assuming of course we go ahead with unifying all Document objects. 55005 6 cam 2011-08-14 22:49:09 +0000 Ah, yes. I realise then that we cannot have interface Document { ... }; interface HTMLDocument { attribute DOMString title; ... }; interface SVGDocument { readonly atribute DOMString title; ... }; Document implements HTMLDocument; Document implements SVGDocument; due to the two title attributes. If we are indeed going the route of all Document objects implement all XXXDocument interfaces as above, then we should do one of the following: a. Drop title from SVGDocument when we come to expressing its interfaces in Web IDL, and assume that all SVGDocument objects are also HTMLDocuments b. Define in Web IDL that two attributes on mixin interfaces with the same name and type like this is allowed, as long as they're "the same" 55015 7 ian 2011-08-15 03:57:04 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: The HTML spec intentionally defers to the SVG spec in the case where the SVG doc.title is to reign. Once SVG is updated so that SVGDocument is always implemented in SVG UAs, its doc.title will presumable similarly defer back to HTML in cases where the SVG one doesn't apply. That way both specs can co-exist without the other having to be updated when either one changes. Both interfaces need to define it, since there are HTML UAs that aren't SVG UAs and SVG UAs that aren't HTML UAs. 55051 8 Ms2ger 2011-08-15 07:40:54 +0000 The spec states: If the root element is an svg element in the "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" namespace, and the user agent supports SVG, then the setter must defer to the setter for the IDL attribute of the same name on the SVGDocument interface (if it is readonly, then this will raise an exception). Stop the algorithm here. [SVG] The parenthetical is factually incorrect. Please fix that. 55650 9 ian 2011-08-23 05:00:20 +0000 What should it say instead? Doesn't setting a readonly property throw any more? 55675 10 zcorpan 2011-08-23 09:02:37 +0000 It doesn't throw in non-strict mode. It throws in strict mode. IMHO the parenthesis can be removed altogether. 56259 11 ian 2011-09-04 01:26:34 +0000 Ok, I'll remove the parenthetical. 57193 12 ian 2011-09-22 22:30:13 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Concurred with comment 10. 57194 13 contributor 2011-09-22 22:31:57 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6563. Check-in comment: accuracy http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6562&to=6563 57221 14 Ms2ger 2011-09-23 08:09:35 +0000 Thank you.