As far as referencing a view in the same document, the circular reference issues would come into effect, similar to a <use> referencing the parent <svg> element. However, if you wanted to <use> a particular view of an SVG in a different file, it could be useful. >From an authoring perspective, <use href="otherFile.svg#view" /> isn't that much different from <image href="otherFile.svg#view" /> except that you should get style inheritance for the <use>. >From an implementation perspective, however, we'd need special rules to enable this. Basically, you would be re-using the <svg> (and all it's child content), but with the modified attributes, title, and desc from the view. ~Amelia On 4 November 2015 at 15:28, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > On 4 Nov 2015, at 8:13 pm, Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net> > wrote: > > a <view> element defines a view for its parent <svg> element. The <use> > element is allowed to reference <svg> elements. So, should <use> be allowed > to reference a <view> element? > > > In http://www.w3.org/2015/08/25-svg-minutes.html#item03 we resolved that > <view> doesn’t define a view for its closest ancestor <svg>, but the outer > <svg>. If we allowed <use> to reference <view>, and if we were consistent > with this decision, it wouldn’t be so useful. >
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 23:08:53 UTC