> On 24 Jun 2014, at 05:25, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> Allowing html directly in svg is definitely the right answer. Parsing >> shouldn't be too hard, and defining the layout model would be pretty >> trivial. > > For layout, we could do this: > 1) When an HTML element is a child of an SVG element, perform CSS layout of the HTML element treating the nearest SVG viewport as the containing block. Its user-space width and height become the width and height of the containing block in CSS pixels. > 2) Treat such HTML elements as "position:relative". We should also support position:absolute. Given that this can then be changed, what happens for position:static? Ignored? Just flow within the school container? I agree that position:relative is a desirable default in this case, but if position:static can be supported then I (lightly) argue that a special case to change the default value inside SVG is a bad idea. It's more code, and less expected for end users.
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 06:36:25 UTC