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

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