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: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:34:04 -0500
Message-ID: <418A4BEC.5020206@ocallahan.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org

>ROC> Right OK, but if you agree SVG text is purely presentational and 
>ROC> flowPara and flowDiv have identical presentation, then why not remove
>ROC> flowPara in favour of flowDiv?
>They have different content models. Actually, originally you had to have
>a flowDiv even if there was a single flowPara;  but there was pushback
>on that. Regardless, flowDiv  has no inline children and flowPara has
>all inline children.
Since HTML DIVs can contain inline elements, I think authors are going 
to be surprised and annoyed that SVG flowDivs can't. I can't seem to 
find any discussion of why this restriction is so important, can you 
point me to something?

Maybe calling it <flowLines> instead of <flowPara> would be a slight 
improvement, to distinguish it from the semantics-carrying HTML <P>.


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 Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:34:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC