- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:42:02 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Some comments on the proposal at
>> <http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/improving-svg-dom/>.
>>
>> 1. The proposal currently says that SVG elements in either HTML or the
>> null namespace opt into the new DOM. This appears to be because of a
>> belief that createElement() run in an XML document creates an element
>> in the null namespace. Per spec, at least, this is wrong -
>> createElement() always puts elements in the HTML namespace, so we can
>> just drop the "null namespace" part and only care about the HTML
>> namespace.
>
>
> As I saw it, there were two advantages to allowing the elements to be in
> either the HTML namespace or no namespace. One is createElement doing the
> right thing, regardless of whether you were in an HTML or XML document,
> though as you point out if it's meant to put things in the HTML namespace
> always, then that's one advantage removed. The second was to allow
>
> <graphics>
> </graphics>
>
> in image/svg+xml documents, rather than requiring
>
> <graphics xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> </graphics>
>
> (Or <svg>, if you don't buy in to the need for a new root element.)
Ah, I didn't think of that. Stupid XML rules. >_<
>> 3. I'm not convinced on the<viewport> element. I have found it
>> slightly clumsy before that some attributes are only useful on the
>> root<svg> and others are only useful on nested<svg>s, but I don't
>> know how bad this is. Shrug, I can be convinced either way.
>
>
> Three alternatives to <viewport>: continue allowing <svg> as the viewport
> establishing element inside an SVG fragment; allow <graphics> in the middle
> of the document; add the viewport-defining attributes to <g>.
The third one, please! I usually just set "svg svg { overflow:
visible; }" in my stylesheet and then just use <svg> as a movable <g>
anyway. (Easier to use x/y than transform="translate(x,y)" all the
time.)
~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 23:42:49 UTC