W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Is the <g> element redundant in SVG?

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@Adobe.COM>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:52:07 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010110194853.0213d7c0@mailsj.corp.adobe.com>
To: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, svg-developers@egroups.com
The <g> has at least one attribute that an <svg> doesn't have -- the 
'transform' attribute, and the <svg> has many attributes  that a <g> 
doesn't have, particularly document-level attributes. There are many notes 
in the SVG spec about unique behavior with <svg> elements. While they 
overlap quite a bit, there are clear differences.

There is clearly a need for two different elements.

Jon Ferraiolo
SVG Editor
jferraio@adobe.com

At 06:23 PM 1/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I wonder if someone can help me. I am trying to figure out what purpose the
><g> element serves in SVG 1.0.
>
>I am not asking how to use it. That I understand. At least I think I do. :)
>
>But why is the <g> element there at all? Since the <svg> element can be
>nested and implicitly groups elements nested within it what is the unique
>value that the <g> element adds?
>
>Am I missing some obvious unique aspect of the <g> element? Or could it
>simply be deleted from SVG 1.0 with no loss and nested <svg> elements serve
>the same purpose?
>
>Andrew Watt
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 15:40:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:19 GMT