Re: SVG text wrapping (was: minutes, Tokyo 2013 SVG F2F Day 2, 4 June 2013)

(2013/06/06 23:08), Doug Schepers wrote:
>> Actually this isn't Doug's proposal. It's how Cam prototyped an
>> implementation.

Thanks, that's where I was getting mixed up.

>> Doug originally intended that the x, y stay the same regardless of the
>> presence of a width
>> attribute. Cam just did a quick implementation and I guess for
>> expedience made the
>> x,y the flow bound box origin.
>>
>> So, the text would not jump based on the presence of the width attribute.

That's good to know.

> I've now clarified my proposal on this point (see "Positioning (x and y)"):
>   http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Proposals/Wrapping_Text

That looks much better than what I was imagining.

> However, I agree with Cameron that empowering authors to explicitly set
> the y-origin to align to the top of the rendering area is a good idea,
> and alignment-baseline:top will let them do that (as I mention in the
> updated proposal).

Yes, I think that's reasonable.

> I proposed <textshape> for SVG Tiny 1.2, but alas, my feedback came too
> late for existing implementations.
>
> I still maintain that allowing authors to specify a width for <text> is
> more intuitive and has a better fallback than a new dedicated element,
> and I don't think it results in behavior any more confusing than any
> other property that changes the text positioning... for example,
> alignment-baseline or text-anchor.

I think it's ok given that it's backwards compatible. If authors are 
repeatedly writing:

   <text style="alignment-baseline:text-before-edge; width: 100px" y="10">

we could investigate adding another element that is a shorthand for the 
above.

One question while I'm at it, in the proposal you consistently use x/y 
attributes but width/height within a style attribute. Are you suggesting 
width/height *not* be presentation attributes but only properties?

> Brian, does this address your concerns? Do you still have worries about
> this proposal?

Yes it address my concerns. I mistook the description of the prototype 
for a description of the proposal.

Best regards,

Brian

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 00:34:53 UTC