- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:08:58 -0800
- To: Steve Schafer <steve@fenestra.com>
- Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Steve Schafer <steve@fenestra.com> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 03:44:29 +0200, you wrote: >>This is an edge case, where the shapes don’t overlap with their >>parents/children. > > Yes, well, that was the point... This proposal give us something that > superficially appears to support graphical nesting, but it isn't really > nesting. I believe that that fact has a far greater potential to cause > confusion than what we have right now. Your concern about confusion is misplaced. You've repeatedly stated that the fact that the children aren't required to be visually contained is a problem, and refer vaguely to CSS as justifying this concern, but this is not valid. CSS has no problem with children being visually outside their parents, as the default value for "overflow" is "visible". The closest analog to SVG's layout model in CSS, absolute positioning, works *exactly* like how Doug proposes nested SVG to work. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 19:10:00 UTC