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

Re: SVG12: svg in foreignObject

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:31:38 +0200
Message-ID: <361175556.20050825123138@w3.org>
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 GMT

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