Closed
Bug 287465
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
We should implement the GetSVGDocument interface for HTMLObjectElement/HTMLIFrameElement
Categories
(Core :: SVG, defect)
Core
SVG
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: jwatt, Assigned: roc)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
|
18.34 KB,
patch
|
jst
:
review+
jst
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
We should probably implement the GetSVGDocument interface for HTMLObjectElement.
We implemented this interface for HTMLEmbedElement in bug 281741.
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 319447 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
Acid3 test expects |getSVGDocument| for both |iframe| and |object|.
Summary: We should implement the GetSVGDocument interface for HTMLObjectElement → We should implement the GetSVGDocument interface for HTMLObjectElement/HTMLIFrameElement
| Reporter | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Bah, that's lame. How hard is it to do:
var doc = iframe.contentDocument || iframe.getSVGDocument();
There are tons of far more critical bugs with no such workaround. IMO acid tests should focus on some of them.
Besides that, the SVG WG seems to have agreed to deprecate getSVGDocument, which was always a crappy interface addition to objects outside of the control of the SVG spec.
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
It may or may not be too late to get that changed; I'd suggest telling Hixie this. He's usually on #whatwg on freenode and typically in #developers.
The claim is he doesn't read bugmail, but it can't hurt to CC him if he happens to be doing so.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
Yup, I'm planning to.
Note he's also the "QA Contact" for this bug, so he'll already be getting the bugmail. ;-)
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
The test for it was submitted by a SVGWG member, so...
I don't mind making it optional, I guess, if it really is to be taken out of the spec.
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
We might as well just pluck this low-hanging fruit.
Assignee: jwatt → roc
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #324947 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #324947 -
Flags: review?(jst)
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 324947 [details] [diff] [review]
just do it
Looks good.
Attachment #324947 -
Flags: superreview?(jst)
Attachment #324947 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #324947 -
Flags: review?(jst)
Attachment #324947 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•17 years ago
|
||
checked in
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 11•17 years ago
|
||
Seems some files are missing...
mozilla/content/html/content/src/nsHTMLIFrameElement.cpp:39:34: nsIDOMGetSVGDocument.h: No such file or directory
mozilla/content/html/content/src/nsHTMLIFrameElement.cpp:41:31: nsIDOMSVGDocument.h: No such file or directory
Comment 12•17 years ago
|
||
Those includes should be #ifdef MOZ_SVG, no?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 13•17 years ago
|
||
Yeah!
| Assignee | ||
Comment 14•17 years ago
|
||
romaxa, can you patch this?
Comment 15•17 years ago
|
||
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•