Re: [svg2] make foreignObject a graphics element

On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:05:32 +0200, Stephen Chenney  
<schenney@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Chenney 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>.
>>>
>>
>> You could get around around that restriction anyway by putting a
>> <foreignObject> in a <g> and then having your <use> reference the <g>.
>>
>
> Yes. Dirk's suggestion to explicitly excluding <foreignObject> from a
> <use>'ed subtree would address the problems, I believe.
>
> Stephen.

Could you explain what you see as the primary concern with use referencing  
a subtree that includes a foreignObject? I'm not against restricting it if  
there are good reasons to do so, but in that case those reasons should be  
clearly spelled out in the spec. Are the majority of use+foreignObject  
cases unproblematic? Most actual usage of foreignObject I've seen does not  
use complicated html markup or styling (like needing different css boxes  
as illustrated by the thread below), commonly it's just used for automatic  
text wrapping.

Some good points were raised by Robert O'Callahan here:  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Oct/0018.html, I presume  
that's part of the reason. FWIW I agree that it is desirable to not do  
actual cloning, but that's a separate issue.


-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 14:47:01 UTC