Re: [SVG1.0] no tspan allowed inside an anchor?

"Jon Ferraiolo" <>

> I haven't monitored this discussion that closely. However, you did
> request that the WG review your idea that we should get rid of <tspan>.
> (Isn't that what you are asking?) Here is my personal opinion

That was my suggestion based on the fact that it achieves nothing, that
text alone doesn't give, and is potentially confusing, the main issue
though is the limiting of A which started the thread, and the fact that
the suggestion is it's analgous to the span element of HTML when it is

> As a
> content developer, it is very nice to be able to search for the string
> 'text' within an SVG to aid in searching for distinct text blocks. In
> fact, I would argue that from an accessibility perspective, it is
> to have separate elements. (Thus, your opinion is not shared by all.)

I've already demonstrated an accessibility problem with tspan currently,
and proposed a solution, it's not the only solution obviously, so a
different resolution would be fine.

> But most importantly, the cat is out of the bag. People have been
> developing content using <tspan> for years now, and it is now almost a
> year since SVG 1.0 became a Recommendation, so lots of content has been
> developed since we officially said "go use <tspan>".

Sure, there's no problem here, that's the whole point of namespaces, is
it not?... Alternatively you could leave tspan in the spec, but include
the ability for the A element to contain it, and to then address the
issue raised over <a ... > <tspan /> </a> without a text element by
either removing the restriction of tspan to be a child of text - in
effect making tspan identical to text - this would break no legacy
content that I can see.  Or alternatively you could identify the
restriction in a different mechanism as you suggest, I don't see the
particular value in this, but as I said this could be because of my being
inable to understand the semantic difference between text and tspan.


Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 10:39:14 UTC