- 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