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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:40:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF6887C.6040309@inkedblade.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Kevin Ar18 <kevinar18@hotmail.com>, public-fx@w3.org
On 11/30/2010 07:57 PM, Ian Hickson 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).


>> 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.

This is fine. Just don't use the term "replaced element" in a way that's
inconsistent with CSS2.1. In fact, I suggest not using the term "replaced
element" here at all -- except as an example. E.g. something like

   | The embed, iframe, and video elements are expected to be treated as
   | embedded elements; that is, the resources they represent are expected
   | to be rendered inline in the document. (For CSS renderers, this means
   | treating them as a <a href="...">replaced element</a>.)

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 17:40:47 UTC

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