Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Flowing text and graphics

Peter Sorotokin wrote:
> I think you are missing the point. I am not talking about semantics or 
> concepts.

I realize that you were not.  I believe they are something to keep in mind when 
making such decisions, however.

> I am saying that new attribute *syntax* is not as good as new 
> markup *syntax*.

That's a vast generalization.  In this case, why have any attributes at all? 
Why not do everything via markup?

> This is a generally accepted rule for SVG and the only 
> deviation from it is path data (where XML syntax was too verbose). 

And you don't feel that it is for this case, I suppose?

> But what if I want to fill with text only a shape which is not obscured 
> by something else, and I don't want to calculate the shape which is my 
> shape minus that something else (which might be dynamic).

Is this a common use case?  If not, perhaps you _should_ calculate the shape 
instead of forcing every UA implementor to have code to do so?

Just a question to be considered, though I'm sure that was done before this part 
of the specification was written.

> flowRef decouples drawing from flowing, so it is needed almost in any case when shapes differ in any way.

So the idea here is that you can flow into multiple regions and then rearrange 
the regions in various ways later and that the flowing doesn't have to be aware 
of the rearranging?

> Does it mean that if we reference it, we have to stay in CR until it 
> moves to Rec?

I don't believe that is the case, but I'm not that familiar with the W3 process 
rules, not being a member of any working groups...  So it's worth checking.

-Boris

Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:13:45 UTC