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

Re: Towards resolution of SVG 1.2 Flowing text

From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:11:12 -0800
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20041102150858.04e52ac8@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

At 03:05 PM 11/2/2004 -0800, Peter Sorotokin wrote:

>At 03:58 PM 11/2/2004 -0500, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>Peter Sorotokin wrote:
>>
>>>flowDiv can only be used on the top level (and there can be only a 
>>>single flowDiv per set of regions) and flowPara can only be used inside 
>>>of the flowDiv. flowDiv effectively switches from graphics layout to 
>>>text layout (similarly to svg:text element), flowPara acts more like a 
>>>tspan. They are quite different elements.
>>
>>Why not allow nested flowDivs to be consistent with HTML and avoid the 
>>need for flowPara?
>
>flowDiv is more like html:body than html:div. It is an element that hosts 
>the flow, not a block-level element. Top-level flow elements (html:body, 
>svg:text, fo:flow) are normally not allowed to nest like that. It is also 
>quite different from flowPara from the implementation point of view.
>
>Maybe it should be renamed into flowBody.
>
>Peter

Rereading the spec the explanation above is actually out of date, as 
flowPara now is allowed to go inside flowRoot (this was not the case 
before). So, given the current state of the draft, I see your point.

Peter



>>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 23:11:15 UTC

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