- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:07:11 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
> [...] I disagree with removing <tspan>.
I also see no reason for that.
Only in future versions, when all text structure might be modeled anew,
as part of an overhaul (which might make sense after text-wrapping etc.
has been introduced), it might make sense to replace/rename/, (or also
leave it as is).
> There is a clear difference
> between something which identifies the start/end of a text block and
> something which alters the attributes of a portion of a text block.
I agree.
> 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>".
Yes; last call for 1.0 is long gone.
> Overall, I don't believe that it is worth disrupting the SVG community
> by deprecating <tspan>.
I agree.
> However, I think the working group should reevaluate the restriction on
> <a> and <tspan>.
That would be great!
> Tobi (I think) pointed out that we might be able to do
> something the XML Schema or at least via supplemental notes in the spec
> to prevent this from being legal:
>
> <svg>
> <a>
> <tspan>
"an a can have tspan children, but only if it has a text ancestor"
stuff like this would be useful
<svg>
<text>
<a>
<tspan></tspan>
<tspan></tspan>
<circle/>
</a>
<a>
<tspan></tspan>
<tspan></tspan>
<rect/>
</a>
</text>
</svg>
Tobi
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 11:06:35 UTC