W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] Comments on Last Call WD of SVG T1.2 (ACTION-2315, ISSUE-2134)

From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:04:11 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ui59c904gqiacl@gnorps>

Cyril Concolato wrote:

> * Section 5.6
> The following sentence is unclear:
> "If an event listener is registered on a referenced element, then the actual target for the event will be the SVGElementInstance  object within the "instance tree" corresponding to the > given referenced element."
> What is the difference with the next paragraph ?

This sentence (and most of this section I believe) was taken from SVG 1.1 (see [1]). The difference between the two paragraphs is that it talks about event listeners. The first paragraph (the sentence you quote) might be redundant, but it looks like a simplification (or high-level description) of the second paragraph. The WG prefers not to change this.

> In this section, the spec explain the transfer of attribute from a use element to an hypothetical g element. 
> In this explanation, why is the 'xlink:href' of a use element transfered to the generated content? What is the purpose?

The spec states that 'xlink:href' is not transferred to the "generated g element". Perhaps this was a misunderstanding? See the bullet point list:
"In the generated content, the 'use' will be replaced by 'g', where all attributes from the 'use' element _except_ for 'x', 'y', 'xml:base' and 'xlink:href' are transferred to the generated 'g' element."

> I think there is an editing mistake in this section. It says: 
> "except for resolution of relative IRI references as noted above and until the referenced elements are modified. 
> Note also that any changes to the used element are immediately reflected in the generated content. " 
> The first sentence is incomplete.

This "incomplete sentence" was supposed to be read with the other half of the sentence above the bullet point list. It has been combined in the latest draft, see [2].

> Could you add a clarification explaining what happens to id and xml:id attributes in the deep-cloned tree? 
> For example, between examples 05_13.svg and 05_14.svg, ids have been remove. Please explain also what happens to 
> xlink:href attributes  especially that internal references to the cloned tree are replaced by 'scoped' references.

It does say before the example 05_14.svg that it shows "the visual effect". Nothing says that that is the exact equivalent of 05_13.svg. If you wanted to copy/clone id:s that would be fine, as long as they are never exposed to the DOM and don't affect your processing. The WG resolved to leave the example as-is, mainly because it would be confusing if the document had id:s in the "conceptually cloned 'g' element" given that an element can be use:d multiple times.

> Example "image-use-base.svg" contains errors. The use element does not have width and height attributes.

Correct, the example has been fixed, see [2].

> According to the example image-use-base.svg, the content of xml:base is not simply transfered to the "generated 'g'  element" but 
> the xml:base is resolved before transfering in it to the generated 'g' element. Could you clarify this process?

See response to your comment about 'xlink:href' above, xml:base is not transferred to the "generated 'g' element".

Please let us know if this satisfies your comment.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/struct.html#UseElement
[2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/struct.html#UseElement

Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 14:04:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:20 UTC