Re: SVG Tiny 1.2 is now a Candidate Recommendation

On Aug 10, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:

> Formal Objections
> =================
> 1. Maciej Stachowiak registered a Formal Objection on 22 March 2006
>    regarding the provision of a text wrapping facility.
> SVG 1.1 already has a mechanism for text breaks (the tspan
> element) but requires that the author choose the position of the
> break in advance.
> For SVG which is generated automatically, or includes strings of
> unknown length drawn from a database, or where the font to be
> used is not known, it is desirable to allow the line break
> positions to be calculated at display time. A common use case is
> text callouts on a diagram, which must fit into a rectangle of a
> given size and where part numbers etc. are drawn from a database.
> Given that this is a popular and much-requested feature, and
> given that a critical mass of content authors and implementors
> have stated that they want this feature, the SVG Working Group
> declined to remove it, over the objection of Maciej
> Stachowiak. However, the line wrapping requirements were softened
> so that an existing engine (e.g., a CSS or XSL engine) could be
> used to perform the wrapping and still be compliant to the SVG
> specification. The Director agreed with the Working Group's
> approach.

I have implemented SVG text in a browser that supports HTML/CSS CDI,  
using the existing text layout engine. I disagree with the working  
group's assertion that an existing CSS text layout engine could be  
used to implement textArea. To cite two examples, the set of CSS  
properties that must or must not be respected when determining line  
height or line spacing is incompatible, and the whitespace processing  
model is incompatible.

SVG text as currently designed is not at all well suited for  
implementation in an HTML/SVG compound document user agent, whatever  
the Director may think of the matter. I ask the SVG WG not to make  
misleading claims to the contrary.

I would also like to note that I am not the only one who objected to  
inclusion of this facility. Others may not have used the magic words  
"Formal Objection", but they objected just the same. I ask the SVG WG  
not to imply that wrapped text was left in over my objection alone.

Given the working group's relative disinterest in interoperability  
with HTML/CSS, and its willingness to repeatedly violate the W3C  
process with no explanation, I don't think it makes sense for vendors  
of browser-hosted implementations to continue to participate. Instead  
we should work out amongst ourselves what makes sense to implement in  
a web browser.


Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 23:28:16 UTC