W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: <link> and <param> in SVG (SVG ACTION-2534)

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:21:17 +0200
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B373146F-F1C7-4749-9165-13E94E36CA0C@berjon.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
On May 1, 2009, at 21:13 , Doug Schepers wrote:
> Correct, we haven't worked out the details, but we do plan to  
> "decommission" @xlink:href, allowing @null:href and/or @null:src in  
> its place.  The only open questions, IIRC, are whether @null:href  
> and @null:src can be used interchangeably, or if @null:href is for  
> "outbound" links and @null:src for "inbound" ones

I think that we're much better off with separating the semantics of  
href and src, and not adding two attributes (which then need one to  
take precedence, and complicates generic scripting, etc.).


> The <param> element would be used, for example, as a child of the  
> <use> or <animation> elements, where it's referencing other SVG  
> files which can take parameters.  In other words, it would be used  
> like it is in <object>:
>
> <use xlink:href="somefile.svg#someElement">
>  <param name="color" value="cornflowerblue"/>
> </use>

This is interesting, but may prove tricky. The inheritance of <use>  
content is already expletived up and the cause of a number of  
implementation annoyances (notably caching optimisations), throwing in  
parameters might make it even more complex. It might not be ideal, but  
have you considered reusing <object> instead? You'd get <param> free,  
and you could define that for SVG content the inheritance is more  
sensible than that which <use> provides.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 12:22:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:34 GMT