- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:31:38 +0200
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-svg@w3.org
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 4:31:03 PM, Jon wrote: JF> I hate to be picky, but I think there is a better approach for wording what JF> happens with SVG content inside of an svg:foreignObject. Instead of saying: JF> "The contents of 'foreignObject' are assumed to be from a different JF> namespace. Any SVG elements within a 'foreignObject' will not be drawn." JF> how about: JF> "It is assumed that the contents of 'foreignObject' are rendered as a JF> different content type using a different user agent. 'Different user agent may (Firefox+ASV) or may not (Firefox native) be the case. The definition of the content should not encourage content creators to assume a particular implementation strategy. JF> The SVG user agent JF> must treat all of the content within a 'foreignObject" (including SVG JF> namespace elements) as foreign content which is to be handed off to a JF> different user agent for rendering." JF> The above wording leaves open the possibility of future deprecation of JF> svg:foreignObject in favor of html:object (or cdf:object or XLink) because JF> it does not completely rule out the possibility of LanguageFoo nesting JF> LanguageFoo via a [foreign]object tag. (Thinking of html:object referencing JF> HTML files.) JF> Jon JF> 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 -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 13:24:22 UTC