W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: How does the svg element handle CSS border and background-color?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:16:27 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7HOrTX9BAYPn8Y3BU6ZKWhFa40sU0FYS=Rkdi@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Kevin Ar18 <kevinar18@hotmail.com>, public-fx@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, fantasai wrote:
>> On 08/23/2010 03:06 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, fantasai wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > As far as I can tell, HTML5 does not consider the SVG element to be this
>> > > > kind of replaced content:
>> > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html#replaced-elements
>> > >
>> > > I don't really know what "replaced element" means in HTML
>> >
>> > It's the CSS term -- that section is the part of HTML that defines how
>> > HTML maps to CSS.
>> I see. It might help to link to the definition, then. :) Although I'm
>> a little concerned that this is not connecting up very smoothly.
> What URL should I use to link to the definition? There doesn't seem to be
> a public editor's draft of CSS 2.1 and the CSS3 drafts on the topic do
> seem to be mature enough to warrant deep linking (not because of the
> content, but because the links are likely to break without my noticing).

Can't really help on this issue, unfortunately.  The ED of CSS 2.1 is
still member-private for some reason.  :\

>> Wrt CSS, any element whose rendering is outside the scope of CSS
>> rendering rules is considered a "replaced element". This would include
>> embedded SVG and MathML.
> HTML tries to stay out of defining how SVG and CSS should interact since
> that's a problem that exists without HTML. Whatever rules apply when HTML
> is absent still apply when HTML is present. If there's any magic text I
> need to include to make sure HTML doesn't "turn off" those rules, let me
> know. I try to avoid saying things like "The requirements of the Foo
> specification apply" since that tends to imply that there might be some
> reason to believe that without that statement, they might not apply.

The idea is that embedded SVG and MathML should act like embedded
documents, just like an <iframe>.

I don't think that's strictly required, though.  We could instead
treat them like normal elements in the tree, just like an <iframe
seamless>, I guess.

I'm not sure which position I'd prefer to take.

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 01:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:45 UTC