Re: Suggestions

Sigurd Lerstad wrote:

>> > remove <image>
>>I'm not sure if there are (m)any reasons to make SVG 1.0

What's your opinion on this one? Do you think it's worth it?

>> > This way, you first of all get closer to XHTML
>>*Why* would this be a good thing in this case?
> Well, not for the sake of getting closer to XHTML, but for the same reasons
> that the XHTML group removed the <img> tag.

If you want image removed from SVG, you might want to say why; here :)

> Consider an authoring tool. You import some data, say an XHTML file, this
> will typically be put in a <foreignObject> element, let's say the user wants
> to link to the file instead of embedding it, will the authoring tool replace
> the <foreignObject> with an <image> element?

image can't reference XHTML documents, as you quote below. If it could, 
then you say <foreignObject> would be better? I'm not sure if the reason 
you list is relevant enough to make SVG 1.1- forwards-incompatible.

> ---------
> The 'image' element indicates that the contents of a complete file are to be
> rendered into a given rectangle within the current user coordinate system.
> The 'image' element can refer to raster image files such as PNG or JPEG or
> to files with MIME type of "image/svg+xml
> ---------
> and it also has a preserveAspectRatio which <foreignObject> doesn't have.

... which makes sense in current specs AFAICS.

> I suggest, making <image> and <foreignObject> exactly the same, except one
> links to an external resource, and the other is embeded inline. And also
> make the naming of those elements more logic.

So your request (you wrote "remove <image>") changed?

>>[I commenting only on this one suggestion, which doesn't mean I agree
>>with all the others.]
> Since you say that, I must assume you disagree :)

If you're programming, you know that making assumptions is one of the 
most dangerous pitfalls :)



Received on Saturday, 25 January 2003 07:27:19 UTC