- From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:55:07 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
At 03:26 PM 11/2/2004 -0500, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >Chris Lilley wrote: > >>On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 8:27:02 PM, Robert wrote: >> >>ROC> Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> >>>>Or alternatively, that the definition of a para is presentational. >>>>Which it is, as in languages like HTML which sit somewhere in the >>>>middle of the continuum from abstraction to concreteness. >>>> >>ROC> Then what exactly is the defined presentational behaviour of a ROC> >>paragraph, and how does it differ from a DIV? >> >>paragraphs, like divs, are a block of text that starts on a new line and >>whose following block of text also starts on a new line. This is why I >>said they are mid way along the continuum. >> >Right OK, but if you agree SVG text is purely presentational and flowPara >and flowDiv have identical presentation, then why not remove flowPara in >favour of flowDiv? > >Rob flowDiv can only be used on the top level (and there can be only a single flowDiv per set of regions) and flowPara can only be used inside of the flowDiv. flowDiv effectively switches from graphics layout to text layout (similarly to svg:text element), flowPara acts more like a tspan. They are quite different elements. flowLine and flowPara perhaps could be made into a single element. I would be against it because even in raw ASCII text with explicit line breaks this difference is there (lines are separated by '\n' and paragraphs by '\n\n'). I think if ASCII can do it SVG should be allowed to do it too. Peter >-- >Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> >"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word >was God. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We >have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the >Father, full of grace and truth." 1 John 1:1,14 >
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 20:55:37 UTC