Re: [Rendering Order] Some early feedback

On 2009-10-24 2:21 PM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
> As far as I understand the example, the g with a
> largest render-order is on top - as far as I have seen,
> this is not formally defined, should be done of course ;o) 
> Should be noted too, what happens, if two g elements
> have the same render-order. I assume, that the last in the
> source code is on top.
> If referenced with use - this property is inherited I assume,
> if the referenced g does not have its own render-order
> specified?
> Because the use is formally replaced with a g in the generated
> content, is it ok for such cases to put the render-order in the g 
> as well and does it apply to the generated-g?

I think the SVG 1.1 text is poorly worded in this regard. In reality the <use>
is still in the DOM, and the render-order property would still apply to it.
Maybe it would be better to say something like "treated as a 'g'" rather than
"replaced by 'g'". The WG should think about this.

> For the use case above, it could be more useful of course
> to be able to combine this approach the 3D-transfrom
> proposal to use the z-axis (after transformation) somehow 
> for the render-order.

"3D" transforms are just an affect that changes an elements appearance as if it
was being transformed in 3D, but they actually have no affect on its "depth" or
rendering order. Only 'render-order'/'z-index' would. Maybe someone can come up
with a fantastic, relatively easy to grasp proposal on how to change that, but I
seriously doubt it. If you want real 3D as opposed to pseudo 3D, then probably
its better to use something like WebGL (possibly using it to render SVG into
planes that can then be manipulated in true 3D).


Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 11:07:47 UTC