- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:43:49 +1200
- To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Cameron McCormack: > > I wonder if, to handle use case #2, we shouldn’t make authors stick > > their separate runs of text in separate <text> elements. One argument > > the spec makes for doing multi-line text with positioned <tspan>s within > > the one <text> is so that they can all be selected contiguously. We > > have already discussed dropping the requirement that you cannot select > > across multiple <text> elements in a document, however. Vincent Hardy: > I have mixed feelings about that because it would change the semantic > a bit. Currently, a <text> element can represent a paragraph (your use > case #2) and it would no longer be the case here (they would always be > lines). I don’t think we’ve ever claimed that the semantics of a <text> element in an SVG document are that it can or does represent a paragraph. We do say in the spec that a single <text> can be used to paint multiple lines of text, which will still be true. With the above proposal painting multiple lines of text with <text><tspan>+</text> would still work, but you would have to be aware that layout would end up different if you had bidi text in there. If you wanted to keep using <tspan>s for individual lines for whatever reason, then you could put a unicode-bidi:isolate on them. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#isolate -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 16 May 2011 23:44:23 UTC