- From: Jeff Rafter <lists@jeffrafter.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:56:55 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
> I think it would help if the sentence I originally quoted: > > # Similar to the 'display' property, conditional processing attributes > # only affect the direct rendering of elements and do not prevent > # elements from being successfully referenced by other elements (such as > # via a 'use'). > > were followed by something like: > > # However, the conditional processing attributes in the content that > # must appear to be deep-cloned into the generated tree are processed > # normally. > > (I'm a little unsure of the terminology to use since the whole concept > of deep cloning is within a "has the same visual effect as if" clause.) L. David, I recently was working through this section as well and with the help of Bjoern Hoermann I came up with a way to patch the rendering tree as you render without cloning-- simply: removing the referenced node, appending it to the use, patching the attributes based on the referenced element type (saving attributes for restoration after rendering the current <use>), rendering (treating the children of the <use> as you would a <g> or <svg> depending on the type of referenced element), and restoring the previous attributes and structure. Essentially, this lends usefulness to "has the same visual effect" because it is a visual effect rather than a structural generated/cloned tree. I am not sure if this helps your question, but it certainly helped me understand that phrase in in SVG 1.1. My hope is that treating the "shadow tree" as read-only is not impacted as such an implementation would be in violation. Hence, phrasing around "deep-cloning" has me a bit worried. Cheers, Jeff Rafter
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 01:57:12 UTC