W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2005

Re: SVG12: svg in foreignObject

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:31:03 -0700
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823071629.0400a598@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

I hate to be picky, but I think there is a better approach for wording what 
happens with SVG content inside of an svg:foreignObject. Instead of saying:

    "The contents of 'foreignObject' are assumed to be from a different 
namespace. Any SVG elements within a 'foreignObject' will not be drawn."

how about:

    "It is assumed that the contents of 'foreignObject' are rendered as a 
different content type using a different user agent. The SVG user agent 
must treat all of the content within a 'foreignObject" (including SVG 
namespace elements) as foreign content which is to be handed off to a 
different user agent for rendering."

The above wording leaves open the possibility of future deprecation of 
svg:foreignObject in favor of html:object (or cdf:object or XLink) because 
it does not completely rule out the possibility of LanguageFoo nesting 
LanguageFoo via a [foreign]object tag. (Thinking of html:object referencing 
HTML files.)

Jon

At 06:36 AM 8/23/2005, Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Sunday, August 21, 2005, 7:12:13 PM, L. wrote:
>
>LDB> On Sunday 2005-08-21 18:43 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 21, 2005, 6:28:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> >> LDB> On Sunday 2005-08-21 18:20 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, April 24, 2005, 7:27:38 PM, Bjoern wrote:
> >> >> BH>   From 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/extend.html
> >> >> BH> section 19.2
> >> >>
> >> >> BH> [...]
> >> >> BH>   The contents of 'foreignObject' are assumed to be from a 
> different
> >> >> BH>   namespace. Any SVG elements within a 'foreignObject' will not be
> >> >> BH>   drawn, except in the situation where a properly defined SVG
> >> >> BH>   subdocument with a proper xmlns (see "Namespaces in XML 1.1" 
> [XML-NS])
>
> >> >> It is prohibited by the schema, you are correct that this is not
> >> >> desired. The spec has been altered by removing the text after 
> 'drawn' so
> >> >> that the sentence ends there.
>
>Thus leading to the text,
>
>The contents of 'foreignObject' are assumed to be from a different
>namespace. Any SVG elements within a 'foreignObject' will not be
>drawn.
>
> >> LDB> Shouldn't it instead say that any SVG element *children* of a
> >> LDB> 'foreignObject' will not be drawn?
>
>
>Yes.
>
> >> But the original wording seemed to allow direct SVG children. Can you
> >> suggest better text to clarify this?
>
>LDB> Using what I said above:
>
>LDB>    The contents of 'foreignObject' are assumed to be from a different
>LDB>    namespace. Any SVG element children within a 'foreignObject' must not
>LDB>    be drawn.
>
>That seem to be exactly what I said, except s/will/must/, a change i
>certainly agree with.
>
> >> The current wording makes it clear that the existing renderer is not to
> >> render any SVG content which occurs as either direct children or as
> >> nested children of foreignObject.
>
>Right. So can I take it that we now agree with this text?
>
>--
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 15:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:31 GMT