- From: Kurt Cagle <kurt@kurtcagle.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:24:01 -0800
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <41A23CD1.3010409@kurtcagle.net>
SVG 1.2 Comments Chapter 3 1. Usage comment on sXBL. The rationale for bindings for SVG differ from that for XUL. In the latter case, elements that are included are almost invariable new components, and as such as most likely to be provided with data bindings via an attribute or element. In the case of SVG, however, the content for such entities are far more likely to be specifically defined external schemas (for instance, the creation of a pie chart from an XML schema holding the associated data), and for this particular use case the requirements of specifically enveloping such entities within an element can be pretty daunting. As a consequence, I suspect that making it clear that the intent of sXBL bindings within SVG should be seen as being component oriented rather than purely transformation should be at least hinted at within the specification. Although this moves more into a best practices type of scenario, my suspicion is that without this stated "hint" in the spec, a lot of people will be working with very unoptimized SVG at best, and sXBL could become a rallying point for opposition. For this reason, I would recommend that the examples being given focus more on the compnent rather than data oriented nature of sXBL; as it is right now, the and examples do not effectively illustrate this. 2. Section 3.11, concerning binding of style elements into shadow trees bothers me, because of the statement that this restriction may be loosened in subsequent releases. There's also the question of whether a user agent should throw an error if script within the shadow tree alters the stylesheets via DOM. Finally, given that if you define a shadow tree using class attributes, such class attributes are likely to be characteristics that you need to assign within a contained binding, not the calling document, though with the ability of the calling document to override associated class attributes. As class attributes can serve to bundle related stylistic elements in a consistent manner, I see this as being something of a concern for component development. Chapter 4 1. Recommendation: <flowDiv> and <flowPara> are semantically too close, especially given the HTML semantics of <DIV> and <P> respectively. I would recommend that <flowDiv> be renamed to <flowBody>. 2. Last week I became involved in some fairly contentious arguments with the CSS proponents, and in the process of trying to work out the distinctions between the CSS and SVG models, something occurred to me that I'd like to pass on. One of the central issues involved in the current argument between the two flow models comes down to the question of whether columns should be specified via a CSS mechanism in which you specify a given bounding rectangle and then subdivide that region into multiple columns, or whether you take the SVG proposed approach of mapping one column per bounding shape, then map the shapes to the page. It occurs to me that there may be some advantage to combining the two approaches. In essence, within a <flowDiv> element, you include the ability to specify the number of columns that can be contained within that DIV, along with some kind of spacing property that would let you specify the relative sizes of each column. This provides a number of key benefits: 1. Multicolumn flow characteristics will let you do BIDI columns within the flowDiv, so that text will automatically flow according to the relevant directional and language specifications. 2. You retain the ability to specify overflow targets as either shapes (in SVG) or divisional elements (HTML) without needing two different models. 3. The default case is the same in both cases. 4. This can be easily extended to the case of floating entities in which columnar text needs to flow around the floats. 5. Shaped binding characteristics for horizontally irregular shapes would only affect the edge columns - internal columns would retain their rectangular characteristics. More comments to follow. -- Kurt Cagle -- Metaphorical Web
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 19:25:29 UTC