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

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Flowing text and graphics

From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:43:44 -0800
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20041129093727.03198c10@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

At 10:20 AM 11/24/2004 -0600, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>Peter Sorotokin wrote:
>>Yes:
>>- text might need to flow from region to region
>>- exclusion regions
>>- flowRef element
>>For instance, consider a case when there are two rectangles and text is 
>>flown into a top one first and the bottom one second.
>
>So the problem is that you need an order on your areas and an SVG shape 
>would not provide that?  But surely one can use an ordered list of SVG shapes?

Given a choice of inventing a new attribute syntax (list of URLs) or a new 
mark-up, I'd invent new mark-up.


>I'm not sure why exclusion regions are an issue.

You propose there is another property for exclusion regions? How could I 
exclude something only from one region, but not others?


>flowRef does need something to reference, but it's not clear to me why 
>flowRef is needed...

flowRef is needed if you want to reference only something which is flown in 
a particular region, possibly multiple times.


>>That is a good point. I think right now it is undefined. But we are 
>>between a rock and a hard place here: if we don't have a start/end values 
>>that work for both text directions
>
>I didn't say you need to drop start/end.  I just asked that you _not_ drop 
>left/right, while adding start/end.

Ah, OK, I see your point.

>   For that matter, there's no reason to drop the <string> value.  The 
> CSS3 Text CR states that the <string> value only applies to table 
> cells.  Since there are no table cells in sight in SVG proper, it'll 
> simply be treated as 'start' [1].
>
>In other words, I think you can simply reference the CSS3 Text property 
>without placing additional restrictions on it, I believe.

Is it stable, though?


>>That is a good catch. We probably should define it more specifically.
>
>s/probably//, please.  ;)

Agreed.


>>>  For "center", I'm really not sure what a reasonable implementation 
>>> would be.  This needs to be defined.
>>Yes.
>
>I assume that means, "Yes, it needs to be defined"?

You are right.

Peter


>-Boris
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 17:43:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:53 UTC