Re: Flowing text in SVG2

Hi all,

In this case SVG2 is about to create the problem of having to revert to
previous generation technology to do the task the standard is much better
suited to. Yes, we can include some HTML text into our document to do
textflow in one of those ugly rectangular shapes without any control over
kerning and layout as we've done the past 20+ years. Same for text inputs
and the like.

I don quite get the idea that SVG should be reduced to creating vector
illustration and larded with javascript libraries to produce the
functionality everyone in the design industry has been waiting for for so
long.

Text input in typographic text, arbitrary shape flowed text, typography
control. It's not rocket science and is something HTML lacks and SVG is
well geared for to provide. Some method of escape code or <br> would be
nice as well when it comes to flow text, so you can easily paragraph it.

Anchors that let you pan to an object? Would be great for diagrams and the
like and worked nicely in HTML. I get the idea that function bloat should
be prevented, but having some measure of similarity really wouldn't hurt.
It would certainly make SVG more acceptable if similar methods can be used
for functionality that has been around in HTML for 20+ years.

The main reason for HTML to be a success is because it was easy to use and
simple widgets were standardised. Why are SVG user expected to be JS
programmers or alchemist using HTML for some basic functionality that will
kill the whole UX? SVG is needed to fill the void that HTML left on the
design aspect of content. Or am I single in this view?

Jelle Mulder

> anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
>>     What is the flowed
>>     text http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/flow.html
>> replacement
>>     in the next more advanced and awesome SVG2?
>>
> Whilst I'm not sure what the current policy is, the original concept,
> arising from the X in XML, would have been that if you wanted to embed
> HTML features in SVG, you would used the relevant XHTML elements,
> possibly wrapped in something to indicate an escape.
>
> One of the problems with software standards, is that they eventually try
> to do everything in the one standard, which then leads to the creation
> of new, simpler, and more tightly focussed standards covering their
> original core area.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
>

Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 09:58:07 UTC