- From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:22:01 -0800
- To: "Martijn" <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>, "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
I think it is pretty clear from CSS spec that svg is a replaced element, because its content is not rendered by CSS formatter. Element's box itself, of course, is under the control of the formatter, but that is no different for an img or object elements. Perhaps, listing svg element as an example of a replaced element would be good. Definition of the rendered content does seem to be too narrow to me. Peter -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martijn Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:24 AM To: www-style Subject: Definition of a replaced element I was reading this mail thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2007Jan/0001.html And it was mentioned that <svg> was a replaced element. When I look at the definition of a replaced element: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#replaced-element Apparently this applies to the <svg> element, right? "An element that is outside the scope of the CSS formatter" So the content of an <svg> element is outside the scope of the CSS formatter? Wat is exactly is the CSS formatter? Definition of Rendered content: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#rendered-content "The rendered content of a replaced element comes from outside the source document" That seems to be not the case for the <svg> element, or am I misreading this in some way? Regards, Martijn -- Martijn Wargers Help Mozilla! http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/qa/ http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2007 20:22:22 UTC