Re: [svg2] make foreignObject a graphics element

On May 23, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Chenney <schenney@chromium.org> wrote:

> Making foreignObject a Graphics Element would allow it in <use> elements, which we absolutely do not want to allow given the current semantics of <use>.

Maybe we should exclude it explicitly for <use> element.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> Hello Erik,
> 
> Thursday, May 16, 2013, 10:37:09 AM, you wrote:
> 
> > Robert Longson discovered in [1] that foreignObject is neither a 'graphics
> > element' nor a 'container element' in svg at the moment. The consequence
> > being that some properties that normally apply to rendering elements don't
> > apply to foreignObject, such as 'filter', 'mask' and 'clip-path' to name
> > just a few. I think this is an oversight that should be corrected, most
> > implementations do apply these properties to foreignObject already (as if
> > it was a 'graphics element'), see [2] and [3].
> 
> I suspect that its not so much an oversight, more that it was seen to
> be in neither of those categories because its used by another markup
> language.
> 
> However, as an interface element, it needs to have an SVG category 'on
> the outside' and be owned by the other language 'on the inside'. I
> agree that it should be seen as a graphics element in that context.
> 
> > Proposal: Make foreignObject a graphics element.
> 
> > Rationale: Making foreignObject a container element would imply that it
> > can contain other graphics elements and container elements as direct
> > children, which may be ok technically, but I'd consider it bad practice.
> 
> 
> > [1]
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16320863/svg-image-mask-not-working-in-firefox-or-ie
> > [2] http://jsfiddle.net/xeK2m/
> > [3] http://jsfiddle.net/UYZW9/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Best regards,
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 01:10:07 UTC