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

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

From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:01:05 EST
Message-ID: <d.ec5e94b.278f7911@aol.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org, svg-developers@egroups.com
In a message dated 11/01/01 20:40:35 GMT Standard Time, jferraio@Adobe.COM 
writes:

> 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

Thanks, Jon.

I appreciated that the <svg> element has many more attributes than the <g> 
element.

But, if the <svg> element had a transform attribute (as an optional 
attribute) then wouldn't the <g> element essentially be redundant? Wouldn't 
the nested <svg> be able to do all a <g> can do?

Just an idle rambling probably. :) ... I can't imagine anyone actually 
wanting to move things back and take <g> out. :) ... <grin> especially the 
editor of the Spec. </grin>

Andrew Watt
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 16:01:47 GMT

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