Re: A plan to enable Forms?

Hi,

IMHO it's reasonable to not plan any form features in SVG. That's what
XForms and, in a broader scope, XML namespaces are especially designed
for. SVG as it is is complex enough for implementors.

In this context: Would it be a good idea to also use another language
for continuous text? Like HTML or XSL-FO. In the case of HTML, this is
already possible in most browsers. XSL-FO would deliver sophisticated
text handling free to the door. Then the SVG 1.2 spec could skip all new
text elements beyond text/tspan/tref/textArea and doesn't need to
concern itself with requests for lists, tables, hyphenation and the such.

In this case I think the section about the foreignObject element should
be extended by examples of how forms and text can be realized and how
user agents should or should not react to this content.

Cheers,



Doug Schepers schrieb:
> Hi, Jonathan-
>
> "~:'' ありがとうございました" wrote (on 8/14/09 4:26 AM):
>> A plan to enable Forms?
>>
>> Does the SVG WG have a plan to enable Forms?
>
> The SVG WG has never intended to include native form functionality,
> including form widgets, into SVG, and that has not changed.
>
> Instead, the policy has always been that form functionality would be
> provided by a dedicated forms language such as XForms, or by a hybrid
> language like X/HTML.  We are getting to the point where mixing SVG
> and X/HTML is possible in most browsers, so using that approach is
> probably the most pragmatic choice.
>
>
>> what is the current status regarding sockets and SVG 1.2?
>
> We have dropped the sockets interface from SVG 1.2, and future work on
> the topic will be covered by the WebApps WG's Web Sockets specification:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/websockets/
>
> You might also be interested in the XHR spec, from the same group:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
>
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
>

Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 09:22:10 UTC