- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:12:32 +0200
- To: Russ Shotts <rshotts@jasc.com>
- CC: "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Russ Shotts wrote: > > The latest spec removes the restriction on forward references and the > requirement that all referenced elements be defined in a 'defs'. I will > admit that I dislike these changes due to the additional complexity they > introduce. The spec does not give examples to justify the changes; it > simply states that the changes were made for compatibility with > SMIL/Animation. It seemed that there were already forward references, so the restriction was felt to be unhelpful. > > I cannot locate details or examples which define the expected behavior. > Would you please clarify the following: > > 1. Section 6.3.4 states that graphics elements within a 'defs' will not be > drawn. While the spec does not state, I would expect some items defined > outside a 'defs' to not be drawn. Specifically, it would seem that items > which are always referenced (e.g., 'linearGradient', a 'pattern', a > 'symbol', or a 'marker') but are not definied in a 'defs' should not be > drawn. Yes. > 2. When (or how) are references to be resolved? When an individual shape is > read? Once all shapes are read? Why would this make a difference? > 3. What if multiple gradients (or patterns) use the same id? Only one element in an XML file can have a particular ID. It is invalid to have the same id twice. > 4. What if one of the definitions is before the referencing shape and one is > after? There can only be one definition with a given id. > 5. What if the multiple definitions are spread across this group and its > ancestors? And if they are all forward references? > > 6. What happens when a gradient and a shape each use the same id? Is there > a single namespace for all ids, or separate namespaces for shapes and fills? There is a single space for all ids, within which they all have to be unique within a given xml file. > The previous version of the spec had a simpler model, yet the Adobe plug-in > and the IBM viewer had two very different implementations. If two gradients > were defined with the same id, the plug-in uses the first definition while > the viewer uses the most recent. Both are doing undefined error correction. -- Chris
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 18:12:43 UTC