- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:51:53 -0700
- To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCS0ORW84FX066jDY_AjxTSk+8CvxHdUzOK7giAuRm_Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David, I'm not sure if I follow everything you're saying. >From Dirk's latest comments, it does seem that deeper interaction between <svg> and <html> is possible. We also have every intention in bring HTML text to SVG; we just haven't figured out an elegant way yet. Rik On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:33 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>wrote: > Hi Rik, all,**** > > ** ** > > Rik wrote:**** > > Browser are indeed treating svg as a canvas (and not as a change from the > css box model to the svg drawing model) so it makes sense to have the > content isolated.**** > > ** ** > > I’m not quite sure if I know what all these terms mean from the point of > view of implementers, but way back when in 2007, when the gang of five was > trying (and succeeding) to wrest control of HTML from the W3C, I tried > (unsuccessfully of course) to try to place the conversation on a footing > that might allow authors to participate and to consider where one might > actually want the web to go. As you can probably imagine, such words were > treated as sheer heresy, as was my stated desire that SVG butterflies might > flit about a web page and drink text-nectar from and thence cross-pollinate > HTML textareas.**** > > ** ** > > Calling for such functionality (which was not a “recognized use case,” > being artsy rather than practical) served as proof positive that all my > ideas thence after could be systematically ignored by whatwuggers and their > henchmen. On the other hand it seems like the statement above dooms SVG > butterflies to never be able to drink the nectar of HTML text. **** > > ** ** > > Perhaps if we’d ever get textareas in SVG then we wouldn’t really need all > that silly HTML stuff.**** > > ** ** > > Smiles**** > > David**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Rik Cabanier [mailto:cabanier@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 6:39 PM > *To:* Dirk Schulze > *Cc:* www-svg; public-fx@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: [css-compositing] blending and inline SVG**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:* > *** > > > On May 20, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All, > > > > I was editing the chapter on isolation [1] and wondered if inline svg > should happen in an isolated group. (So the <svg> tag would establish a new > group/stacking context) > > It seems that it would be very hard to implement if this was not the > case. > > > > Is everyone that inline SVG is always isolated? > > > > We also need to discuss what other constructs in SVG create isolation. > The current filter spec assumes that nothing does, but that doesn't > correspond with reality.**** > > The first question is how inline SVG cooperates with HTML in general. We > did not specify that anywhere to my knowledge. In Blink and WebKit inline > SVG elements are handled as replacement elements, same as <img>, <video> or > <canvas>. It would make sense to not treat inline SVG elements different > from the other elements for these two engines. However, I would like to > understand where you see the technical difference to other "graphical" HTML > elements like <div> or <p>.**** > > ** ** > > I'm unsure what you are asking. **** > > Browser are indeed treating svg as a canvas (and not as a change from the > css box model to the svg drawing model) so it makes sense to have the > content isolated.**** >
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 23:52:22 UTC