W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2008

[Bug 5815] foreignObject in the SVG namespace should be scoping

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:28:22 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1KCZXS-0001Z1-S5@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5815





--- Comment #3 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  2008-06-28 12:28:22 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't know that it's that bad...

It's bad because it spectacularly fails to adhere to the principle of least
surprise. It is reasonable to assume that you can put an SVG subtree anywhere
that an <img> could go. It is also reasonable to assume that the kind of things
you can do in a <td> you can also do in a <foreignObject>. Currently, it
appears like this is the case for some things, but then if you change things a
little bit, the parse tree becomes fundamentally different in a very
rendering-relevant way.

> do we want to allow nested paragraphs like that? 

Yes. :-)

> The semantics seem dubious.

As far as I can tell, given how paragraphs have been defined since December,
the semantics are the same with an explicit outer <p> or without. :-)

Anyway, I don't buy semantic arguments: The rule for where you can put an SVG
subtree should be simple. The rule for what you can put in a foreignObject
should be simple (and intuitively, it would be really weird not to be able to
use <p> in there). The two rules should be composable without counter-intuitive
consequences.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 12:28:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 28 June 2008 12:28:59 GMT