- From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:43:44 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
At 10:20 AM 11/24/2004 -0600, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >Peter Sorotokin wrote: >>Yes: >>- text might need to flow from region to region >>- exclusion regions >>- flowRef element >>For instance, consider a case when there are two rectangles and text is >>flown into a top one first and the bottom one second. > >So the problem is that you need an order on your areas and an SVG shape >would not provide that? But surely one can use an ordered list of SVG shapes? Given a choice of inventing a new attribute syntax (list of URLs) or a new mark-up, I'd invent new mark-up. >I'm not sure why exclusion regions are an issue. You propose there is another property for exclusion regions? How could I exclude something only from one region, but not others? >flowRef does need something to reference, but it's not clear to me why >flowRef is needed... flowRef is needed if you want to reference only something which is flown in a particular region, possibly multiple times. >>That is a good point. I think right now it is undefined. But we are >>between a rock and a hard place here: if we don't have a start/end values >>that work for both text directions > >I didn't say you need to drop start/end. I just asked that you _not_ drop >left/right, while adding start/end. Ah, OK, I see your point. > For that matter, there's no reason to drop the <string> value. The > CSS3 Text CR states that the <string> value only applies to table > cells. Since there are no table cells in sight in SVG proper, it'll > simply be treated as 'start' [1]. > >In other words, I think you can simply reference the CSS3 Text property >without placing additional restrictions on it, I believe. Is it stable, though? >>That is a good catch. We probably should define it more specifically. > >s/probably//, please. ;) Agreed. >>> For "center", I'm really not sure what a reasonable implementation >>> would be. This needs to be defined. >>Yes. > >I assume that means, "Yes, it needs to be defined"? You are right. Peter >-Boris
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 17:43:47 UTC