Thomas DeWeese:
> Well, yes and no. If we fire that event the event target should be
> an ElementInstance. Since as you know we don't implement the
> ElementInstance
> stuff it would be difficult to do this :) It isn't clear to me which is the
> lesser of the two evils - not firing the event, or firing the event with
> the cloned instance as target.
Hmm, I see the problem. I thought the SVGElementInstance was just an
interface, and that the shadow tree contained actual SVG graphics object
elements which implement that interface. But if they are completely
separate objects, I can see the problem.
Am I right in thinking that, since the shadow tree is completely hidden,
it's impossible to modify the instantiated objects? And that you can
only modify the referenced elements?
> Anyone willing to vote on this :)
Maybe the objects which have been cloned with the deepCloneNode function
should implement SVGElementInstance. Maybe newNode can be overriden
in non-abstract descendants of SVGOMElement to do
return new SVGOMBlahElement implements SVGElementInstance { };
in the right situation, or something.
Cameron
--
Cameron McCormack
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]
// http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~clm/
// icq 26955922
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
