- From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:08:42 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
At 01:11 PM 11/30/2004 -0600, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >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? Things that are not human-readable text basically must be attributes. And it is OK to reuse attribute microsynax where it is already defined (e.g. css length). >>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? Certainly not. It is not going to cause file size explosion (as path data did). >>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? At least as common as float in HTML. > If not, perhaps you _should_ calculate the shape instead of forcing > every UA implementor to have code to do so? There are more users than user agent implementors. And implementation is not hard. >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? Exactly. Rearranged or redrawn with various effects. Peter >>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 20:08:46 UTC