Re: Allowing <mask>, <clipPath> etc. to target their parents

Hi David,

Thanks very much for your feedback. I enjoyed looking at the replicate 
samples too.

I agree that the difference between #id and url(#id) can be confusing. 
If you have a proposal for this I'd like to hear it (e.g. allowing 
'href' to accept url(#id) as well--although as far as I can tell,
"url(#id)" is a valid URI reference so it might be difficult. But since 
we're dropping the xlink prefix we might have some wiggle room with 
regard to requiring escaping on unprefixed attribute values).

Regarding the 'child' syntax, it's unfortunate we need syntax at all, 
but we do for backwards compatibility. Even if we introduce new elements 
that don't have backwards compatibility constraints (e.g. <alphaMask>) 
then we still probably still need to use the 'child' syntax for consistency.


Brian Birtles

(2012/02/21 21:42), David Dailey wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> I'd suggest that as you consider this (which seems quite reasonable, btw), you also look at some of the proposed syntax associated with the replicate tag:
> In that proposal, each of the things that modifies an element: patterns, gradients, clipPaths, masks, animates, filters, transforms, replicates are considered to be "modifiers." As modifiers of an element to be replicated (or animated) these objects can be cloned and customized appropriate to time or space-based interpolations. This conceptual model unifies its handling of all modifiers in ways that make a lot of sense and which seem not to have been considered during the early design phases of SVG 1.  The ability to modify attributes of an element's gradient, filter, pattern or other modifiers as that element is interpolated/extrapolated over time and space is quite powerful. I would recommend that working toward a common syntax for all of these (including how they are referred to (i.e., #id vs url(#id) ) will be in everyone's best interest.
> Cheers
> David

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 05:22:04 UTC