RE: [SVGT 1.2] Question on sizing of the outermost <svg>

Boris,
The current write-up as it exists right at this moment does not use the
term "replaced element" and instead using the term "referencing
element", which I think is more appropriate because it is the SVG spec
(which doesn't define the term "replaced element") and not the CSS spec
(which does use the term "replaced element"). Here is the exact wording
we have right now:

------------
The width attribute on the 'svg' element establishes the viewport's
width, unless all of the following conditions are met:

    * the SVG content is a separately stored resource that is embedded
by reference (such as the 'object' element in [XHTML]), or the SVG
content is embedded inline within a parent document;
    * the parent document is styled using CSS [CSS2] or XSL [XSL];
    * CSS-compatible width properties [see CSS2-VISUDET] or
corresponding XSL properties are specified on the referencing element
(or rootmost 'svg' element for inline SVG content).

Under these conditions, the positioning properties establish the
viewport's width.

(and similar language for height)
------------

Is this use of "referencing element" OK with you (versus "replaced
element")?

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:20 AM
To: Jon Ferraiolo
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [SVGT 1.2] Question on sizing of the outermost <svg>

Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
> * The spec has been clarified to say that CSS properties for width and
> height also apply to inline embedded SVG content within a parent
> document which is styled by CSS.

Does this actually say that <svg:svg> should be treated as a replaced
element in 
a CSS context?  If not, please say that?  That will allow various things
like 
the aspect ratio stuff being proposed for CSS replaced elements to work
with 
SVG, which would be great.

Other than that, sounds fantastic.  Thank you very much.

-Boris

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 22:01:20 UTC