W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Towards resolution of SVG 1.2 Flowing text

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:26:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4187ED7F.9080805@ocallahan.org>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 8:27:02 PM, Robert wrote:
>
>ROC> Chris Lilley wrote:
>  
>
>>>Or alternatively, that the definition of a para is presentational. Which it is, as in languages like HTML which sit somewhere in the middle of the continuum from abstraction to concreteness.
>>>      
>>>
>ROC> Then what exactly is the defined presentational behaviour of a 
>ROC> paragraph, and how does it differ from a DIV?
>
>paragraphs, like divs, are a block of text that starts on a new line and
>whose following block of text also starts on a new line. This is why I
>said they are mid way along the continuum.
>  
>
Right OK, but if you agree SVG text is purely presentational and 
flowPara and flowDiv have identical presentation, then why not remove 
flowPara in favour of flowDiv?

Rob

-- 
Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We
have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the
Father, full of grace and truth." 1 John 1:1,14
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 20:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC